Using the False Flag of Tolerance to Promote Intolerance
June 23rd 2008 02:06
Using the False Flag of Tolerance to Promote Intolerance
Tolerance is too tolerant for its own good:
There are several definitions of tolerance for various good reasons. In engineering tolerance can be applied in a scientific manner where accuracy can be seen in terms of approximation (Plus or Minus) to an absolute. If something is measured at 3mm the engineer knows that there is a degree of inaccuracy and regardless of how minute it is (perhaps a few microns) the inaccuracy does exist in all measurement. Yet it is with social measurements that the true inability to make exact measurements start to develop. How does one measure the validity of a set of values without first having a set of values to compare them with? The engineer has a yardstick based upon a predetermined length of a what defines a single unit of measurement (Z x wavelengths = 1 meter) but the social engineer has no such universal yardstick. When speaking in terms of tolerance whether it is engineering or social engineering we need to know what the yardstick we are going to be using before we use any terms like tolerance.
Prizes in Nonsense:
If begging the question was to be awarded prizes then by far the winner would be ‘Politically Correctness’. It is a term that screams out the question begging to be answered: ‘Correct for whom?’ Just like the once in vogue term used by socialists ‘Ideologically Correct’ the answer is based upon the vested interest of who makes the assertion that something is ‘Politically Correct’. The PC movement is hardly a movement at all but a flag of convenience for a numerous agendas and social policies. People have heard the term ‘Politically Correctness gone Mad,’ and rightly it has been refuted as nothing more than semantics. Yet to blindly accept that there is such a thing as being ‘Politically Correct’ is to enforce one politically ideology as being correct only because it is yours. Without a clearly stated set of values and reasoning the term is meaningless.
I will say what tolerance means and no one else:
The word Tolerance also begs the question in much the same way. Tolerant of what? Being tolerant of something does not automatically mean that you are without prejudice. Prejudice certainly does stifle tolerance of other viewpoints but the equation does not always work both directions. This because prejudice can be defined as prejudging but tolerance is a vague word with its own baggage such as begging the question, emotional bias and weasel wording. Prejudice can be demonstrated and refuted easily but tolerance requires some degree of emphasis on what to the parameters of tolerance and intolerance in fact are. Breaking the law in Victoria by Speeding has a measurable tolerance of 3kmph but the line between satire and vilification is a constant blur. This vagueness gives ample opportunity for vested interests to exploit the word and raise it as a flag for their cause alone. Tolerance for some vested interest is a buzz word that means that they are correct because they say so.
Raising the Flag:
Most people may see themselves as being tolerant regardless of what ideology that they subscribe to. I am yet to meet a person that professes they that are unreasonable and intolerant. People who hold opinions often claim that they have carefully considered all sides of the argument and came to sound conclusion. So far so good. However there comes a point where one opinion is incompatible with another. This is the point of distinction or point of difference between argument, where neither can be no yielding without complete capitulation. Hence for an atheist if they decide that God does exist they cease to be an atheist. The fundamental principles of any ideology (whether we like it or not define) what they are and the moment that we abandon them we cease to subscribe to the ideology. You can claim to be a pure Luddite but if you start collecting and using high technology then you cease to qualify as one. Just like a person claiming to be medical Doctor without a license it is a false claim. This is because the fundamentals of any principles are what defines them. Tolerance in these cases only creates a fraudulent lie where those who wish to claim to be one thing are in fact something else because they have failed to qualify. A mathematician is a mathematician and create a liberal mathematician is complete nonsense.
Hiding in the Nonsense to sell an Agenda:
If you want to cheapen any argument just fling false accusations at an opponent. If the accusation is false it can be made seem real by wrapping it up in vague buzz words like ‘Tolerance.’ Instead of the person asking to see the validity of the argument they must accept that any opposing argument is inherently wrong because it fails their definition of Tolerance. This happens all the time in public debates where unpalatable and unpopular propositions are being sold. The flag of ‘Politically Correct’ is countered with the statement of ‘Political Correctness Gone Mad’, but the false flagging of the word ‘Tolerance’ has not yet been countered to such a degree.
Tolerance of people’s beliefs, race, creed and colour etc are commonly seen as positives that counter bigotry and racism. Yet not all beliefs have equal reason to be respected. Beliefs that incite violence in my view should not be encouraged or promoted. Others may have a different viewpoint and that is their prerogative. Some use the Law as the finality of what is correct; other use Popularity; others use predefined ideologies; others cling onto prejudices and others hate. To tolerate all views is to accommodate Moral anarchism or Moral nihilism. Take your pick.
The Pitfalls of the False Flag of Tolerance:
Without tolerance we are regimented to a mythical monoculture dictatorship. Yet it is possible to use the flag of tolerance to sell intolerance. For example: what happens in a society that tolerates cannibalism as nothing more than a social difference? Enforcement of so called tolerant rules can sometime be the epitome of intolerance. Should schools allow students to wear gang colours on the property to tolerate their free expression? Should doctors be forced by the law to perform operations that they find morally personally reprehensible? Should chemist be forced to carry drugs specifically designed for euthanasia and supply them to patients against their better judgement? Yet this is what is sometimes offered in the name of tolerance. In such cases it is a false flag that has little to with understanding of conscientious objections and is little more than enforcement of someone else’s ideology upon the unwilling.
What next for you Damien?
Tolerance is too tolerant for its own good:
There are several definitions of tolerance for various good reasons. In engineering tolerance can be applied in a scientific manner where accuracy can be seen in terms of approximation (Plus or Minus) to an absolute. If something is measured at 3mm the engineer knows that there is a degree of inaccuracy and regardless of how minute it is (perhaps a few microns) the inaccuracy does exist in all measurement. Yet it is with social measurements that the true inability to make exact measurements start to develop. How does one measure the validity of a set of values without first having a set of values to compare them with? The engineer has a yardstick based upon a predetermined length of a what defines a single unit of measurement (Z x wavelengths = 1 meter) but the social engineer has no such universal yardstick. When speaking in terms of tolerance whether it is engineering or social engineering we need to know what the yardstick we are going to be using before we use any terms like tolerance.
Prizes in Nonsense:
If begging the question was to be awarded prizes then by far the winner would be ‘Politically Correctness’. It is a term that screams out the question begging to be answered: ‘Correct for whom?’ Just like the once in vogue term used by socialists ‘Ideologically Correct’ the answer is based upon the vested interest of who makes the assertion that something is ‘Politically Correct’. The PC movement is hardly a movement at all but a flag of convenience for a numerous agendas and social policies. People have heard the term ‘Politically Correctness gone Mad,’ and rightly it has been refuted as nothing more than semantics. Yet to blindly accept that there is such a thing as being ‘Politically Correct’ is to enforce one politically ideology as being correct only because it is yours. Without a clearly stated set of values and reasoning the term is meaningless.
I will say what tolerance means and no one else:
The word Tolerance also begs the question in much the same way. Tolerant of what? Being tolerant of something does not automatically mean that you are without prejudice. Prejudice certainly does stifle tolerance of other viewpoints but the equation does not always work both directions. This because prejudice can be defined as prejudging but tolerance is a vague word with its own baggage such as begging the question, emotional bias and weasel wording. Prejudice can be demonstrated and refuted easily but tolerance requires some degree of emphasis on what to the parameters of tolerance and intolerance in fact are. Breaking the law in Victoria by Speeding has a measurable tolerance of 3kmph but the line between satire and vilification is a constant blur. This vagueness gives ample opportunity for vested interests to exploit the word and raise it as a flag for their cause alone. Tolerance for some vested interest is a buzz word that means that they are correct because they say so.
The chicken crossed the road to be tolerant of this side.
Raising the Flag:
Most people may see themselves as being tolerant regardless of what ideology that they subscribe to. I am yet to meet a person that professes they that are unreasonable and intolerant. People who hold opinions often claim that they have carefully considered all sides of the argument and came to sound conclusion. So far so good. However there comes a point where one opinion is incompatible with another. This is the point of distinction or point of difference between argument, where neither can be no yielding without complete capitulation. Hence for an atheist if they decide that God does exist they cease to be an atheist. The fundamental principles of any ideology (whether we like it or not define) what they are and the moment that we abandon them we cease to subscribe to the ideology. You can claim to be a pure Luddite but if you start collecting and using high technology then you cease to qualify as one. Just like a person claiming to be medical Doctor without a license it is a false claim. This is because the fundamentals of any principles are what defines them. Tolerance in these cases only creates a fraudulent lie where those who wish to claim to be one thing are in fact something else because they have failed to qualify. A mathematician is a mathematician and create a liberal mathematician is complete nonsense.
Hiding in the Nonsense to sell an Agenda:
If you want to cheapen any argument just fling false accusations at an opponent. If the accusation is false it can be made seem real by wrapping it up in vague buzz words like ‘Tolerance.’ Instead of the person asking to see the validity of the argument they must accept that any opposing argument is inherently wrong because it fails their definition of Tolerance. This happens all the time in public debates where unpalatable and unpopular propositions are being sold. The flag of ‘Politically Correct’ is countered with the statement of ‘Political Correctness Gone Mad’, but the false flagging of the word ‘Tolerance’ has not yet been countered to such a degree.
Tolerance of people’s beliefs, race, creed and colour etc are commonly seen as positives that counter bigotry and racism. Yet not all beliefs have equal reason to be respected. Beliefs that incite violence in my view should not be encouraged or promoted. Others may have a different viewpoint and that is their prerogative. Some use the Law as the finality of what is correct; other use Popularity; others use predefined ideologies; others cling onto prejudices and others hate. To tolerate all views is to accommodate Moral anarchism or Moral nihilism. Take your pick.
Don't I get a vote in this matter?
The Pitfalls of the False Flag of Tolerance:
Without tolerance we are regimented to a mythical monoculture dictatorship. Yet it is possible to use the flag of tolerance to sell intolerance. For example: what happens in a society that tolerates cannibalism as nothing more than a social difference? Enforcement of so called tolerant rules can sometime be the epitome of intolerance. Should schools allow students to wear gang colours on the property to tolerate their free expression? Should doctors be forced by the law to perform operations that they find morally personally reprehensible? Should chemist be forced to carry drugs specifically designed for euthanasia and supply them to patients against their better judgement? Yet this is what is sometimes offered in the name of tolerance. In such cases it is a false flag that has little to with understanding of conscientious objections and is little more than enforcement of someone else’s ideology upon the unwilling.
Carrot and Stick tolerance policies
| 64 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Louie
Climate Forum
Climate Red
randomthoughts
Phil's Wellness Tips
Very thought provoking.
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Thanks for your comments.
If only common sense was more common.
Otherwise there would be no prisoners of conscience.
Comment by Cheryl J
Funny Videos
Rhythmatism
Zentertainment
I do however have a problem with your last paragraph
If a doctor doesn't want to perform a procedure it is their right under law not to do so and the onus is on the patient to find a doctor who will but where do you draw the line with conscientious objections? In Canada doctors are now permitted to object to performing pap smears to women if it goes against their moral judgement. Why in the world would a doctor have the right to refuse to test me for a disease that could save my life? What possible moral judgement could be behind it? Because I have had sex at some stage? Because they find a vagina so abhorrent or think it is inappropraite for anyone other than a husband to touch a vagina? Give me a break. What next? If they decide seeing a naked breast is offensive and I have a lump I can't get a mammogram. If a man is uncircumcised and shows signs of testicular cancer should a Jewish doctor be able to say they're not going to test him?
As far as I'm concerned if you are a doctor, you treat. If you are pharmacist you provide prescribed medication. If you are soldier and you are in battle, you kill if necessary. If your conscience says otherwise then you find another job that is more suitable to your belief system.
...and is little more than enforcement of someone else’s ideology upon the unwilling. That swings both ways. By expecting a Catholic pharmacist to give me birth control which I am entitled to am I forcing my ideology upon the unwilling? By refusing to give me birth control because the pharmacist is Catholic are they forcing their ideology upon me?
Your job is your job. If you can't perform your job then you should get another one. A doctor who is pro-life could work in a practice that specifically treats the elderly - in geriatric medicine you are highly unlikely to perform an abortion. Or even take up a specialty which is completely removed from that field like neurology or proctology. A pharmacist who believes it is morally wrong to dispense contraceptives can work in the research and manufacturing of drugs which do not cross their moral lines. If a soldier is unwilling to kill when it is deemed necessary by their government and military then they don't join the army and become a soldier.
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Thanks for your comprehensive comments.
Obviously this is not a simple matter because the question of what is a genuine flag and a false flag is contentious.
However the question of conscientious objection is a somewhat clearer. It can be simplified in two words, "Make Me."
You tell a pharmacist to supply a legal prescribed medicine for example thalidomide in the late 60's but the chemist has information about the consequences of the drug. Under your theory he must supply it.
Under his own theory he can always say, "Make Me."
If a soldier signs up for war there is an expectation that he will be asked to commit war crimes.
If soldier is conscripted, as often happens, then what happens to his ability not to join?
The soldier still has the final say if he is ordered to kill civilians. "Make Me."
If a doctor is Pro-life, and there are many, why should he be removed from areas of the industry that he has chosen to specialize because he refuses to perform abortions. Again he can always say,"Make Me."
Then what? Are you going to close the Chemist, shoot the soldier or jail the doctor? You might be able to do all that but you cannot make a person do what they believe to be dead wrong.
Comment by D. Armenta
The Florida Keys and Everglades
The Black Sheep Chronicles
What constitutes bad manners?
The male mystique
Debate Fan
That didn't take too long this time!
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Where have you been for a month.
Gigging?
The highs and lows of Blogsphere are similar.
Comment by D. Armenta
The Florida Keys and Everglades
The Black Sheep Chronicles
What constitutes bad manners?
The male mystique
Debate Fan