Q

You know, I've come to realize how many of those who claim to represent tolerance don't have any tolerance for those who they deem intolerant! Oy vey! Now how do we deal with this problem?

Well, first of all, we take a look at the primary meaning of tolerance:

1. The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others.
2. 1. Leeway for variation from a standard.
   2. The permissible deviation from a specified value of a structural dimension, often expressed as a percent.
3. The capacity to endure hardship or pain.
4. Medicine.
   1. Physiological resistance to a poison.
   2. The capacity to absorb a drug continuously or in large doses without adverse effect; diminution in the response to a drug after prolonged use.
5. 1. Acceptance of a tissue graft or transplant without immunological rejection.
   2. Unresponsiveness to an antigen that normally produces an immunological reaction.
6. The ability of an organism to resist or survive infection by a parasitic or pathogenic organism.

Well now we base the idea of tolerance mostly on the first definition. Now what exactly does it mean? It's hard to really make a concrete statement about it, so the potential for misuse is enormous. Let me give you an example of abuse of the term:

Someone who fights for freedom of speech in a magazine, oh say like, Hustler. However, if someone speaks out against the magazine, they are labeled intolerant. Is it me or is this rather unfair? In my own experience, I was labeled intolerant because I don't agree with many factors of modern feminism, accussed by someone who said they believed in tolerance for everyone!

However, these examples can be pretty cut and dry, unlike most everyday abuses of the term. Mainly because it can be a huge hardship to try to figure out what is tolerant or intolerant in some situations. Where do we draw the line? For one, we could say that the situation shows intolerance when it impedes on the freedom of another person. However, this is subject to abuse. Here's another example: A man beats his wife an daughter. This is not a tolerable situation because he is:

1. Hurting innocents
2. Impeding on their freedom.

The police are called in. The must impede the mans freeom (jail), in order to prevent him from hurting the wife/daughter or anyone else. So this arguement will not work.

We all have been guilty of intolerance, and have been victims of it. It's a fact of life. However, if you live in the US, you are born with the freedom to speak your mind. I will be honest with you, if the TBN station were to be shut down tommorrow, I'd probably throw a party. However, I realize that they have the right to have their channel, and to speak their views, no matter how I might find some of their views offensive. Pat Robertson has not strolled into my home, dragged me out, and burned me at the stake. So he can say whatever he bloody well wants to, as far as I'm concerned! On the flip side of the coin, I have every right to disagree with him, but I'm not going to try to take away his freedom of speech.

So that's that.

Back to the Main Page

If you got here through a link, click here.