If you tolerate this!


It was suggested by a friend of mine that I am intolerant! Am I not the epitome of 'live and let live if it hurts no other?'
I strongly suspect that I was accused of this simply because I didn't agree with her.
I can look at this world the same as you can and I can choose what I like and what I don't like and I can base my opinion on the things I see or experience with the knowledge I have gained during my life-time and as I learn more then I may choose to change my mind. Greater knowledge of subject allows for better opinions. This is normal and I assume it is the same for most people. Although I have found that with some people it would seem that they hate something without really understanding it.



Manic Street Preachers - If You Tolerate This Your Children Will Be Ne



Momo found this at skreemr.com


What is it that I seem to have become intolerant about?
"Live and let live" is a Buddhist point of view and it is also mine. It's also about the interpretation of those words. I see this phrase as the accepting of people with different beliefs and cultures and a way of life different to my own. But in offering them the respect that I accept them as they are I would hope for the same courtesy that I too am accepted for who and what I am. It does not mean that I live my life and if you choose to be a moralizer then I would accept it!
In my opinion a moralizer is someone who would try to impose their belief system upon you and would like you to live as they do and believe as they do. They are not satisfied with simply suggesting you change your life style to their point of view - they'll do it by coercion and by open disapproval of your current ways and if they have the power, they would also try to enforce this change by law.
I love that line on television about "the majority of people want this..." and somehow nearly every single person watching may think "I don't agree" but they may be easily convinced that almost everyone else does just by hearing those words.

These unsympathetic, intolerant, ignorant and arrogant people believe that their way is the 'only' way and they claim to be defenders of the public faith and protecting the public from these deviants! Does this then show their monopoly on moral judgment?
It appears that this is their way of attacking those things they don't like and they want to impose their points of view on you.
Think about issues like homosexuality, abortion, prostitution, censorship, blasphemy and matters like these. All have had campaigners trying to convince you that these are crimes and you should stamp them out.
In truth they are afraid of these so called freedoms and somehow believe that these issues will destroy the moral fabric of society and yet all have existed for thousands of years and here we are still!
Every age and every generation has suffered these moralizers and each one believed that it was their age that was in crisis. I recall my Father telling me of one crisis just like this over five thousand years ago!
The small individual moralizer can be mostly avoided and considered a proverbial pain in the butt but the high powered one is capable of inflicting his brand of misery upon tens of thousands.
Live and let live I say as long as it does not hurt others.

Tolerance then is not an open invitation to accept everything carte blanche!
Tolerance not only allows but encourages others with different points of view to have their say and then it's usually left to a democracy of ideas to choose the way or ideal for the masses. By its definition then it could allow those with uncompromising views and hard-line moralizing ideals to impose their will on the people.
So should we tolerate the intolerant?
With my loudest voice I say "No!" Tolerance must protect its own ideals. We can say that all may voice their own point of view but we should not force others to accept it. These fanatics may think they are trying to save you from hell or some other imaginable fate but I think they do it because they feel threatened. Insecurity leads to fear and fear begets intolerance and the intolerance leads back to more fears in an endless and malicious circle. Take away hatred from some people, and you have men without faith.
It seems many of us have a respect and a reverence for the human body and yet it sometimes feels that no thought is given to the rape of innocent minds.

I would say that I am tolerant - but only to a point.




I had a wonderful afternoon with my dear friend Yoshi who works within the advertising and marketing business. She was kind enough to introduce me to one of her work associates who has a couple of vacancies in the promotions and public relations department. Perhaps this all sounds very grandiose but really its a matter of standing around and being the face and the voice on site for a particular product. Basically I would sweet talk purchasers, distributors and consumers. This was a similar job that I was perusing when we met Miss Hayashi in Tokushima last August.
I feel quite confident about this position and I really believe that it is well within my capabilities. I hope to hear a favorable result soon.

9 comments :: If you tolerate this!

  1. "These unsympathetic, intolerant, ignorant and arrogant people believe that their way is the 'only' way and they claim to be defenders of the public faith and protecting the public from these deviants"...hmmm...to me the phrase "live and let live" defines more tolerant vocabulary than those expressed and by the use of such intolerant words that strike a chord of hate leads me to believe as I have always said, we each see things differently than others. Live and let live, judge not lest you be judged and to practice tolerance of other religions is not only a Buddist's teaching, yet it is taught in most civilized religions as the passages mentioned can attest.

    Who is to say one way is better than another way? We each will see what we think is best for us and hold to us those things we believe in as the truths. Even in the more structured religions the members or followers do not see exactly eye to eye on what exactly the teachings mean, so they seek out those with similar views and they break off from the mainstream to be among those who see and believe closely to what they do.

    Remember, it is a garden and each flower no less colorful than the one next to it and as we, they too perform a specific function in life which is no less important than that of any other in the garden.

    I really did not note any tolerance in this post, but rather someone upset because they felt as if their moral fiber had been questioned and attacked for not seeing another's way. Tolerance in its full meaning means to step out of your normal beliefs and view it from a more neutral perspective, it is not that you have to agree with what was said, but it gives you that knowledge to understand why they feel that way.

    We as humans were not meant to agree with each other on how we feel things should be or that what one feels as right or wrong. We are given that ability to analyze and try to understand what they mean from their point of view and then maybe during this course of dismembering what they have said you will find a lot that runs parallel with what you believe, just worded a little different.

    We are given that unique ability to reason and to rationalize our words and actions and it is through this ability that we make decisions on how we will lead or life and by what rules we will follow and adhere to. The lists will vary from one to the other and you will even change yours as you grow in life.

    We each have our own opinion as to how we see life, how we lead our lives, what we feel is right and wrong and how we view how others lead theirs and they are as varied in number as there are stars in the universe.

    Do I agree with you on this, in some respect I do and in others I don't, but that does not mean I am right and you are wrong, now does it?

    Later...

  2. Being free of whatever 'friction' is between you two - I did see a tolent post - there was no demands for abolition to this, that or the other, just a cry to reason that I think most of us share.
    I too tolerate so much and then when I've had enough then I am likely to take up arms and fight for what I believe is right.
    I have no doubt that the proverbial "they" will see things different and that "they" believe they are right too.

    What would have me take up arms then?
    The world is big enough for all our little groups to have their own place and live as that particular culture sees fit. What I resent is an OUTSIDER telling me how I should change to be more like them. Dismiss my current values and blindly accept theirs.
    The world is room enough for all of our little and often petty human experiences.

    Tolerant all but the intolerant: I like that phase and it does seem fair and just.

  3. You both make the same error in these comments:
    Garth you see a friction and Ron sees a lack of tolerance or 'upset'.
    I had no emotion in my words at all and yet you both perceive it.
    It is quite possible that it is a reflection from within you both and none from me.
    I was cold, calculating and voicing an opinion and I used a mental model of something that does not affect me in the slightest to ensure that I remained emotion free - that of the Taliban (see picture).

    I see them as unsympathetic, intolerant, ignorant and arrogant people and if you see them as heroes then I'm tolerant of your opinion. I won't say you're wrong and neither will I make mention of public opinion (perhaps the Afghanistan public would feel different than the French public!)

    But then the right words (or wrong ones) whether written by me or voiced by such hard-line groups can certainly stir up emotions.

    Yes Garth it's big world and room enough for several cultures to co-exist and several points of view. The clashes come when one group judges the other from its own set of moral values.

  4. Emotionless objective view? No I do not think it was because you felt enough emotion about what transpired during that conversation to blog about it and make your position clear. I do not believe a person can write something without a modecum of emotion or feeling, that is the general reason we write, because something has moved us to do so. And it was very apparent that you showed it within the context and structure of your posting.

    To say that it was a reflection from within as to how your post was commented on shows emotion on your part, you defended your position as one who wrote with feeling. Not hard to admit when you thik about it, you are no more tolerant than the next when it comes to your personal views on something you felt emotionally moved enough by to post a blog concerning it. We all do the same and no one is excluded from it.

    Later...

  5. OK
    I'm sure that you feel that you know best. What's that attributed too? Greater life experience?

    I'll take a moment to explain.
    At the moment she remarked that I was intolerant I was surprised (Surprise is an emotion), so that much is true.

    When I wrote this blog it was quite some time past that event and it was simply the material I used to offer my thoughts on hard line politics which served as my introduction to how I understand and define tolerance.
    Armed with a little more information you could make another judgment or if you stick with your original judgment then perhaps you would like to point out to everyone line by line my post and exactly what emotion you see there, especially the 'upset' part. I might learn something there.
    Perhaps you would also like to specify also exactly what you agree with and what you don't. You saying "some I agree with and some I don't" is a rather non-committal - sit on the fence and pretty bland statement isn't it?

    I would also like to point out there is no emotion other than frustration in this comment. Frustrated at myself because as you know I like to understand everything and I don't understand where exactly you see this 'upset.'

    Enlighten me!

  6. Without becoming embroiled within whatever interolerance is beneath the surface there with you two I would like to add my thought.

    First great new blog jazz I love it and welcome back after your time away.

    Second is that tolerance can only be offered to one level. If you give give give and those intolerant take take take then eventually they take away your right to have tolerance. Tolerance cant be mixed up with constant efforts to appease these people. If they want want then they too have to give give and that is a compromise that we will make many times in our lifes to accomodate others and we must accomodate them as we hope they will accomodate us and society is smooth with this politeness and tolerance rather than friction of culture clashes.
    I hope you know what I mean.

  7. Momo, I am going to back down from this one, I can see it has touched a chord in you that has set off something you feel is important to eloborate on to the point that you are losing that tolerence you possess.

    Things in what you said that I agree with are the "Tolerance then is not an open invitation to accept everything carte blanche!
    Tolerance not only allows but encourages others with different points of view to have their say and then it's usually left to a democracy of ideas to choose the way or ideal for the masses." To me this could not be more true, but it is something that we practice. We can talk about tolerence all day long and its meaning or how we define it, but it is still something that is practiced, not orated on.

    We all have our own views and how we interpret things in life and unless we all use the dictionary to define them so that we all understand it the same, our views will always be seen slightly different.

    I speak as you do, not from any greater experience in life, you know that I have always felt that you far exceed in life experiences and the knowledged gained from it than those in my own age group. But it seems now I am confronted with sarcasm as to how I commented on your post. I do respect your views on this and how you see it. All I did was make a comment on your post and it seems that I did strike something in you that you feel passionate about. But it was nothing more than how I see it. We are intitled to our opinion, aren't we?

    A line by line explanation as to what you meant? Another strike by you entoned in sarcasm. Why would I try and even fathom what you meant by this? Why would I even try to guess where your head was at when you wrote it? I just gave you my opinion as to what I saw in it, nothing more, so why make more out of it than there is?

    As for sitting on the fence, no I have my own views and feelings on this and I explained how I see tolerance in the beginning of this comment. It seems to be a debate now rather than a discussion on how this posting was viewed. Live and let live as long as it does not affect me or interfere with my life, was one of the things I got out of it and that is just it, to an extent what one does affects other either directly or indirectly, I believe you gave me an analogy once about a pebble being tossed in the water and the ripples it creates, even though we do not realise what those affects may be, we still affect many by our actions. We cannot afford or have that luxury of living in a live and let live society today, because I do not care from what part of the world we are from it will affect us in some manner even if we do not see it as affecting us. We live in a global community now, not as separate indiginous peoples inhabiting specific parts of the globe and we all have our own beliefs and ideas as to how we see others. Tolerance has to be practiced if we want to understand their reasoning behind their beliefs, not just discussed.

    To enlighten you would lead one to think I have an answer, but I don't and I never proclaimed to have it. I just know how I feel about it and it is different than how you feel. Anyway, I did enjoy the posting and the banter it created, a sign of a good journalist when they write something that seems to set off a chain of firecrackers.

    Later...

  8. I'm sorry that you feel that you have to 'back down'!
    I actually enjoyed this exchange and I hope some, including you could see it as an exchange of ideas and a sharing of points of view rather than as some have suggested here, a heated exchange. But then they have eyes on the outside and perhaps that neutral viewpoint allows them a better vantage point.

    I was not annoyed or upset that a friend of mine said that I was intolerant. I know that I may be viewed as better tolerant if she'd seen me in a good mood rather than a bad mood but I didn't think I was in a bad mood when she said it to me and may simply have said it because I didn't agree with one of her statements.

    As I explained, I used this topic as content for my post because it was in my mind, don't you blog about what's on your mind?
    I was not upset about it and in truth I resented the fact that you came here and declared my post to be driven by an 'upset mood.' I took it personally because in my mind I thought 'who is he to say what is and what isn't in my head?' Perhaps that would explain why you see my relies draped in sarcasm. For that I apologize.
    Thanks for the comments though, it made interesting reading aside from whatever lies with us two!

  9. It just seems that we both view this different, when I write I get lost in what I am doing and I cannot see the emotion in what I am writing, but I know that there is some, probably more than I would care to admit. Even though I have said I write about nothing but disaasociated thoughts, things that are constantly running circles in my head and to relieve that pent up angst and to put it behind me I write about it, so in that sense there are emotions. I also feel that when I write, I write for a reason even the poetry, if you can call it that has a meaning, if it didn't I wouldn't write it.

    What I have enjoyed most about your blog is the story within the story, sublinial and sometimes I have to read it several times before I can see it and that is what keeps me coming back.

    This last post I enjoyed very much and the banter it caused and I see that several had their own opinion about tolerance. As I said a sign of a good journalist who can stir up thoughts and emotions and give them enough reason to comment on it. I have always applauded your writing and I always will.

    And the sarcasm was taken in stride, it just stirred me more to comment further.

    Later...

Post a Comment

Thank you for choosing to comment. I love to hear your thoughts and opinions.