What is tolerance?

[Alexiev]

Now lets talk about Trumps indictments, or are you going to persist with the fiction that they are all made up nonsense???


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indictmen ... nald_Trump

Huh? I don't think Trump's indictments are nonsense (although the New York case currently being tried seems trivial compared to the other two). Instead, I correctly stated that you resemble Trump supporters in that you accept only those "facts": that conform to your prejudices.

The Boston Tea Party WAS about taxation without representation -- although the actual taxes being protested were complicated. Read about the Townshend Acts that the Colonists were protesting.
[/quote]
No. "Taxation without representation" was what it was laters to be SPUN about. But the issue was the the British ships came in peddling TAX FREE tea.
You can be forgiven for your ignorance. It is a common misconception with Americans - the people who think that Noah's Ark is literal truth in a similar porportion who think Trump is vote worthy.
"Taxation without representation" was a slogan to encourage the traitors to kill their fellows.

It was you Brits...

There you go making false assumptions.

... who practiced religious bigotry to a greater extent than the Americans.

Britain was known throughout the world as a place enouraging TOLERANCE.
It was that tolerance the the "Pilgrim Fathers" were fleeing.

It was the Brits who ran slave plantations in the Carribean that were even worse
{quote] THe British EMpire banned the slave trade in 1809, long before Americans fought their civil war. You really are ignorant

The U.S banned the importation of slaves in 1808. The East India Company was unloading tea to America at a loss because they'd ripped off so many Indians they glutted the market. In the U.S., as far as I know, nobody was burned at the stake for reading English language bibles. One cannot say the same for Britain.
I just finished "The Last Mughal" by William Dalrymple. It's about the Sepoy Mutiny, which the Brits avenged by slaughtering 150 000 (or more) Indians, many of whom were guilty of nothing.

According to Dalrymple, the Mutiny was precipitated (in part) by British evangelicals both proselytizing in India, and sneering at the heathens. Thank goodness Jane Eyre refused to accompany St John Rivers on his mission, although noone can think marrying Rochester was a road to happiness.

The U.S. has been guilty of many evils (although fewer than the Brits). But dumping tea into the Boston harbor wasn't one of them.

[godelian]

Why would any woman want to "keep a man" like you, godelian?

Because that is what traditional women do and have always done. They go to great lengths to keep a man. It is probably also useful because the man pays the bills, and they cannot count on a feminist government to force him to do that.

Parents (that includes fathers and mothers) should support their children.

Men are biologically inclined to support their children, but only if the relationship with the mother is a committed one. It is unlikely that he wants to support the result of a one-night stand. Furthermore, it is still quite conditional. If the man decides at some point for reasons of his own that he no longer wants to do that, then that is his God-given right.

So, no, it is an inclination and not an obligation, and certainly not an unconditional one. The decision on the matter, is part of his authority as a man.

If the government does not respect that, it must be deported from Kabul airport.

I'm guessing Kevin Costner can afford his child support.

The feminist government is forcing him. They don't respect his authority. That is very hostile behavior. I would rather give the money to Iran or to the Russian Federation to attack and destroy NATO with. Seriously, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.

Perhaps he even wants his children to be raised amidst the luxury to which they are accustomed. Why wouldn't he?

So, she cheats on him, then she leaves the marriage, then takes the children with her, and then thinks that her ex must keep paying for her luxurious lifestyle. I'd rather burn the money than to give it to her.

The solution is not to pay but instead to find a way to get even with the feminist government. They don't respect him. Consequently, he should not respect them either. Seriously, where are the Afghans when we need them? All respect is ultimately always based on the fear for reprisals.

[Alexiev]

So, she cheats on him, then she leaves the marriage, then takes the children with her, and then thinks that her ex must keep paying for her luxurious lifestyle. I'd rather burn the money than to give it to her.

The solution is not to pay but instead to find a way to get even with the feminist government. They don't respect him. Consequently, he should not respect them either. Seriously, where are the Afghans when we need them? All respect is ultimately always based on the fear for reprisals.

In Afghanistan no problem would arise because the cheating wife would be stoned to death. Hurrah for those noble Afghanis! How courageous of them! After all, the Holy Quran approves, and, more important, so does godelian.

We can all see how prosperous Afghanistan is these days. Who wouldn't want to live there? Maybe you should move there godelian. That way we could all say, "Good riddance."

[godelian]

In Afghanistan no problem would arise because the cheating wife would be stoned to death. Hurrah for those noble Afghanis! How courageous of them! After all, the Holy Quran approves, and, more important, so does godelian.

Look, you've obviously tried many different men, but they have all walked out on you. That is why you are single. Are you really going to try to advise other people on what are good men to marry? Where is your ring? Where is your forever man? If you cannot keep a man, then you then have failed as a woman. It is actually not even hard to do, but you cannot do it, because you talk too much shit. If no man wants to stay with you, then what does that say about you?

We can all see how prosperous Afghanistan is these days. Who wouldn't want to live there? Maybe you should move there godelian.

It is irrelevant whether countries are poor or rich. It is obviously your own finances that matter. If Afghanistan were a little bit easier with their visas, I could perfectly live there. Nowadays I live in SE Asia. In theory, these countries are poorer than the West. In practice, my building has a swimming pool, a gym, a rooftop restaurant, 24/7, in-house cleaning service, and so on. There are obviously similar buildings in Kabul, Afghanistan. Does your building have all of that? Since you have no husband to pay the bills, can you even afford that?

That way we could all say, "Good riddance."

You confuse me with other men. You confuse me with the dozens of different boyfriends that have walked out on you. You also told them "good riddance" but it is not you who got rid of them. It is them who got rid of you. Seriously, where is the one, single, imaginary man that you have been able to keep? You talk too much shit and that is why no man will ever love you. Enjoy being alone forever.

[Harbal]

In Afghanistan no problem would arise because the cheating wife would be stoned to death. Hurrah for those noble Afghanis! How courageous of them! After all, the Holy Quran approves, and, more important, so does godelian.

Look, you've obviously tried many different men, but they have all walked out on you. That is why you are single. Are you really going to try to advise other people on what are good men to marry? Where is your ring? Where is your forever man? If you cannot keep a man, then you then have failed as a woman. It is actually not even hard to do, but you cannot do it, because you talk too much shit. If no man wants to stay with you, then what does that say about you?

How old are you, godelian? I only ask because this response of yours is like something one could expect from a child.

[godelian]

In Afghanistan no problem would arise because the cheating wife would be stoned to death. Hurrah for those noble Afghanis! How courageous of them! After all, the Holy Quran approves, and, more important, so does godelian.

Look, you've obviously tried many different men, but they have all walked out on you. That is why you are single. Are you really going to try to advise other people on what are good men to marry? Where is your ring? Where is your forever man? If you cannot keep a man, then you then have failed as a woman. It is actually not even hard to do, but you cannot do it, because you talk too much shit. If no man wants to stay with you, then what does that say about you?

How old are you, godelian? I only ask because this response of yours is like something one could expect from a child.

If I wanted an Afghan woman, I am quite confident that I would be able to get one. As a man, you mostly need to have your finances together. As a woman, on the other hand, you preferably need to be a bit pretty and especially not be insufferable. It is just that visas for Afghanistan are so hard to get. I don't want to put in the effort. By the way, I am absolutely not interested in "stoning" a cheating woman. I just walk out her and get another one. I am used to that from the days I lived in the West. They all cheat. Have I ever "stoned" one? It is rather a question of dumping them before they cheat on you. It is a race against time!

[commonsense]

So, she cheats on him, then she leaves the marriage, then takes the children with her, and then thinks that her ex must keep paying for her luxurious lifestyle. I'd rather burn the money than to give it to her.

The solution is not to pay but instead to find a way to get even with the feminist government. They don't respect him. Consequently, he should not respect them either. Seriously, where are the Afghans when we need them? All respect is ultimately always based on the fear for reprisals.

In Afghanistan no problem would arise because the cheating wife would be stoned to death. Hurrah for those noble Afghanis! How courageous of them! After all, the Holy Quran approves, and, more important, so does godelian.

We can all see how prosperous Afghanistan is these days. Who wouldn't want to live there? Maybe you should move there godelian. That way we could all say, "Good riddance."

[commonsense]

Look, you've obviously tried many different men, but they have all walked out on you. That is why you are single. Are you really going to try to advise other people on what are good men to marry? Where is your ring? Where is your forever man? If you cannot keep a man, then you then have failed as a woman. It is actually not even hard to do, but you cannot do it, because you talk too much shit. If no man wants to stay with you, then what does that say about you?

How old are you, godelian? I only ask because this response of yours is like something one could expect from a child.

If I wanted an Afghan woman, I am quite confident that I would be able to get one. As a man, you mostly need to have your finances together. As a woman, on the other hand, you preferably need to be a bit pretty and especially not be insufferable. It is just that visas for Afghanistan are so hard to get. I don't want to put in the effort. By the way, I am absolutely not interested in "stoning" a cheating woman. I just walk out her and get another one. I am used to that from the days I lived in the West. They all cheat. Have I ever "stoned" one? It is rather a question of dumping them before they cheat on you. It is a race against time!

Where’s Veg when we need her!

[commonsense]

[

[Atla]

Instead of switching to the worst religion in the world, I think it's better to actually act like a man. And then suddenly there will be plenty of faithful women in the West too.

[Lorikeet]

Tolerance is submission to necessity.
Weaker you are the more tolerant you must become.

Stoicism converted it into a way of life - tolerance in relation to existence.

[Dubious]

Tolerance is submission to necessity.
Weaker you are the more tolerant you must become.

Stoicism converted it into a way of life - tolerance in relation to existence.

Well put. It extends the inference from the individual where it commences to the philosophical as a way of coping with human existence as a whole. In its contemporary versions I'm reminded most often of Kierkegaard, Nietzsche and Schopenhauer.

[Immanuel Can]

Tolerance is submission to necessity.
Weaker you are the more tolerant you must become.

On the contrary, is it not obvious that a weak person may well be very intolerant?

If, for example, you regard certain people as a serious threat, and you're a weak person, then your only safe recourse might be to gang up against them, along with other weak persons. You can't easily "tolerate" their presence within your society, or near your person. However, if you are strong, you might not regard them as any kind of threat, and thus be very tolerant of the irritations they cause you. You might shrug off the irritation, and carry on with your own business.

Likewise, if "necessity" is the thing motivating you, and you're "weak," so it's something that's imposed on you as a "must," not a choice, then it would follow that you're not "being tolerant," but rather merely capitulating to the inevitable...possibly even resentfully, and wishing you could do otherwise. How can such a person even be said to be "tolerant"? They look more like a mere victim of circumstance. But if you are strong, and thus it's not necessary for you to attack the person, you might instead choose to exercise tolerance...it would be a luxury you can afford. Why would an overwhelmingly strong person bother to be irritated with a gnat?

So I don't think that what you're suggesting is obviously true. In fact, the above countercases seem to me to challenge that claim significantly.

[Lorikeet]

On the contrary, is it not obvious that a weak person may well be very intolerant?

Only if he is supported by other weak people...a collective.
The choice to belong to a collective is an admission of weakness.

If, for example, you regard certain people as a serious threat, and you're a weak person, then your only safe recourse might be to gang up against them, along with other weak persons. You can't easily "tolerate" their presence within your society, or near your person. However, if you are strong, you might not regard them as any kind of threat, and thus be very tolerant of the irritations they cause you. You might shrug off the irritation, and carry on with your own business.

Yes, but on your own, when you are vulnerable, tolerance is how you attempt to survive.
Even this participation in a group is a symptom of weakness. An admission that you cannot endure alone.
An individual sacrifices freedom to be included in a group. He tolerates the group, even if he may not be totally in agreement with all its members.

Again....necessity.
He needs to survive, so he tolerates the group to be included within its protection.

If an individual did not need the group to accomplish his objectives then he would not tolerate them.

All social behaviour is a product of necessity.

An omnipotent being would need nothing, so he would tolerate nothing....and he would create nothing.

Ananke....primordial goddess.
When they replaced her with Eros it was a sign of Hellenic decline.

Ananke...necessity.
Necessity is a product of weakness, not strength; dependence not independence.

[Immanuel Can]

On the contrary, is it not obvious that a weak person may well be very intolerant?

Only if he is supported by other weak people...a collective.
The choice to belong to a collective is an admission of weakness.

I'm not understanding the logic of your objection here: I said that a weak person could be intolerant. And you're saying that a weak person is a member of a collective, and is admitting he's weak. But you've said nothing about how this relates to tolerance... So I'm unclear on your objection.

Are you saying he can only be intolerant if he is "supported by weak people." I can't see why that would be obvious. Why can't an individual who is weak simply be intolerant, too?

If, for example, you regard certain people as a serious threat, and you're a weak person, then your only safe recourse might be to gang up against them, along with other weak persons. You can't easily "tolerate" their presence within your society, or near your person. However, if you are strong, you might not regard them as any kind of threat, and thus be very tolerant of the irritations they cause you. You might shrug off the irritation, and carry on with your own business.

Yes, but on your own, when you are vulnerable, tolerance is how you attempt to survive.

Oh, I don't think that's obvious at all. If I were weak and vulnerable and on my own, why would I be more inclined to tolerate things that offended me? Wouldn't I be more likely to shy away from them, exclude them, flee from them, fear them? How is that "tolerance"?

Even this participation in a group is a symptom of weakness. An admission that you cannot endure alone.
An individual sacrifices freedom to be included in a group. He tolerates the group, even if he may not be totally in agreement with all its members.

There's something too this. It does explain why so many weak people are drawn to Socialism, and why so many totaltiarians are pleased with Socialism as well: it gives the totalitarian the chance to dominate the weak, unthreatened by strong rivals. It allows him to mobilize mobs.

But that, in itself, is an interesting paradox: why do dictators so love Socialism? Is it because the dictators are weak? Or is it because they're much stronger than the weak masses, and employ the masses to eliminate their stronger rivals?

If an individual did not need the group to accomplish his objectives then he would not tolerate them.

Again, not obvious. A strong man might well tolerate the weak in order to obtain mates, or to simplify his own life by being served by the weak, or because they let him rule over them, or because he wants children (who always start out very weak)...

All social behaviour is a product of necessity.

No, I think that's obviously not the case. Some is because of other advantages that society brings. It's not hard to imagine what gains one can get from being in a society, as opposed to having to do everything yourself.