Regarding Tolerance

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

Tolerance, in its contemporary form, wasn't really intended to be about political viewpoints.

Tolerance was about tolerating differences of race, of religion, of nationality, of sexual orientation, and of gender.

If I pray to my heathen gods, that does not affect your life, so you shouldn't persecute me for it.

If I want to go down on men instead of (or in addition to) women, that doesn't affect your life.

The skin color, nose shape, and eye shape of other people don't affect yoru life.

The first language, accents, cooking traditions, and holidays of other people don't affect your life.

Somebody declaring themselves agender and using they/them pronouns instead of she or he does not affect your life.


Tolerance was never about politics or ideology, beyond the bare facts that certain people's basic identities are considered political. Your politics and your ideologies can have a very real and very dramatic affect on my life. If I judge you by your politics, then I am judging you by your values and your actions.

[Mebius]

The answer to "Where do one individuals rights end?" is "Where another persons rights begin."

[Admiral X]

Tolerance means having the maturity to recognize that other people are different from us. This includes political views you don't agree with.

[LittleRaven]

The answer to "Where do one individuals rights end?" is "Where another persons rights begin."

And how does that apply to, say, a woman's right to control her womb vs. a 25 week fetus' right to live?

Don't worry, the question was rhetorical. I'm merely pointing out that things are slightly more complicated than your analysis would imply.

[LittleRaven]

Tolerance, in its contemporary form, wasn't really intended to be about political viewpoints.

I have no idea what you're basing this on.

I'm going to posit that tolerance, in it's modern form, really dates back to the Peace of Westphalia, where the Catholics and the Protestants tried to end a devastating series of religious wars that had left millions dead over dozens of years by agreeing to disagree. No, the Catholics weren't suddenly 'cool' with the Protestants, and the Holy Roman Empire wasn't suddenly down with the House of Bourbon, but maybe, just maybe, they could stop killing each other by default. Sure, there would still be lots of killing, but maybe that didn't have to be step 1 anymore.

Thus was the Western idea of tolerance born. And yes, it most definitely covered political viewpoints. Lots of people thought the Hapsburgs should be in charge. Lots of people didn't. But maybe you could tolerate your neighbor having a different opinion about that, without say, chaining him to a wheel and breaking all his limbs.

Now, the Peace of Westphalia was 500 years ago. We've come a long way since then. But I don't see how we possibly exclude politics from the concept, particularly in a democracy, without seriously backsliding.

[Mebius]

The answer to "Where do one individuals rights end?" is "Where another persons rights begin."

And how does that apply to, say, a woman's right to control her womb vs. a 25 week fetus' right to live?

Don't worry, the question was rhetorical. I'm merely pointing out that things are slightly more complicated than your analysis would imply.

Yes. If you are under the belief that a fetus is an individual with rights, then that would be an exception to the rule, however we're not talking about the women's right to autonomy vs the rights of something that cannot even be quite considered life yet. If you wanna make that thread go on ahead.

[LittleRaven]

Yes. If you are under the belief that a fetus is an individual with rights, then that would be an exception to the rule, however we're not talking about the women's right to autonomy vs the rights of something that cannot even be quite considered life yet. If you wanna make that thread go on ahead.

Mebius, you and I both know that a fetus that is 25 weeks old can be removed from the mother's womb with a ~75% chance of survival with no major medical complications. We're not talking about a collection of cells here. Hell, my daughter was born at 23 weeks and she's doing just fine these days.

You're not going to find anyone who will say that this isn't a human. Sure, there's a grey area, but 25 weeks is well past it. And, let's be clear, virtually nobody is going to actually HAVE an abortion at 25 weeks unless there's a HUGE medical problem. My question was a thought experiment, not a practical concern. But balancing rights is a deep and complex subject, and not something that can be compressed to a single pithy sentence. We have libraries full of books on the subject for a reason, and we're going to end up writing many more before we're done.

[Mebius]

Yes. If you are under the belief that a fetus is an individual with rights, then that would be an exception to the rule, however we're not talking about the women's right to autonomy vs the rights of something that cannot even be quite considered life yet. If you wanna make that thread go on ahead.

Mebius, you and I both know that a fetus that is 25 weeks old can be removed from the mother's womb with a ~75% chance of survival with no major medical complications. We're not talking about a collection of cells here. Hell, my daughter was born at 23 weeks and she's doing just fine these days.

You're not going to find anyone who will say that this isn't a human. Sure, there's a grey area, but 25 weeks is well past it. And, let's be clear, virtually nobody is going to actually HAVE an abortion at 25 weeks unless there's a HUGE medical problem. My question was a thought experiment, not a practical concern. But balancing rights is a deep and complex subject, and not something that can be compressed to a single pithy sentence. We have libraries full of books on the subject for a reason, and we're going to end up writing many more.

Congratulations.

Also still besides the point. You're arguing a completely different topic. Whether a fetus is alive or not isn't the debate I'm taking part in, Nor one I have any interest in. However as I said in very the message you quoted if you wish to start that thread feel free. Have fun with that discussion.

[LittleRaven]

Also still besides the point. You're arguing a completely different topic.

No, I'm really not. You seem to think I'm making an argument for or against abortion, but I'm not. I'm merely pointing out that abortion rights can get complicated, as can any situation where you have to balance two competing individual rights. But it shouldn't be, right? Because everything can just be boiled down to "The answer to 'Where do one individuals rights end?' is 'Where another persons rights begin.'"

I mean, it's not a bad place to start, but it's just that. A start. The real world is...complex.

[Mebius]

And it was patronizing rebuttal to an assertion that was never made.