23 votes

Define: Tolerance

according to google:

The ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with: "religious tolerance"

The biggest division I have witnessed since the election is the utter lack of tolerance here at the DP. Our Constitution was written to restrain the government and protect individual Liberty.

In order to keep ourselves united may I suggest a healthy dose of tolerance to those we disagree with? Be it Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Agnostic.. can we put aside those differences and unite under the banner of Liberty? Is it possible?

The social issues are what tears us apart and I keep banging my head against a wall because of it. Define tolerance!! What is it?? Can you accept the fact you live in a country that protects your religious freedom and still protects those you disagree with?

I love this community and I love the philosophy of Liberty. In my time here I have not witnessed a thread dealing with the issue of tolerance in correlation with our Constitution and Rights.

We can bridge our divides and unite ourselves if we understand the definition of tolerance. If we are to win, we must be united. The philosophy of Liberty brought us here and lets make sure that it is not squandered over personal beliefs. A common understanding of Liberty can unite all of us, from every religion, color and background. Liberty shines like the eyes of Justice. It may be blindfolded but it does not need to see a thing to understand its philosophy.

The greatest gift ever given to humanity was our Constitution. We had a brief moment in time where our leaders believed in their cause. Washington was man enough not to seize power.. and leader enough to make sure a government was in place before he left. The effects of our Constitution freed the oppressed, freed slaves, freed women and children, freed minorities and created the most amazing country ever known to mankind. The greatest minds that signed on understood the value of tolerance. America has led the world because of our rights and proven system of wealth for the lowest denominator. Dave Thomas was an orphaned illiterate that proved how great America is. A hamburger flipper that could not read or write made millions because of our system of govt.

What is tolerance and what does it mean to our movement?

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

That was not really my point.

My point is none of these posts get real traction. This one got "front page" but that is not "traction." It is getting bumped by the same few of us. Yes, the ones that write similar stuff... "Traction" to me means some new voices chiming in, saying "Yeah, I can see where you are coming from."
I do not see the "liberty movement" gaining cohesion until we lay aside the "divide and conquer" mentality. An institution that is KNOWN to be deliberately shredding families is asked to make decisions on marriage and abortion? These are FAMILY issues - private in the extreme, being hashed out in DC with "one size fits all" legislation? There is an OBVIOUS "common ground" on these issues: Get the government out of the picture. Leave the decision and the consequences - moral, legal, medical - to the people involved. How many of us are REALLY affected by abortion laws? At least half the population will never have any risk of pregnancy, most of the female half will never experience an unwanted pregnancy, so we bicker and fight over a law that actually affects a tiny percentage of people. How many people are really affected by gay marriage laws? Same thing - fight, fight, fight with your neighbor over a "political issue" that has nothing to do with the day to day problems we face as a nation.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

Ahhh now I see

Some other poster below you had also chimed in with somewhat similar sentiments.

I've pointed it out numerous times myself; It's about distraction, division, and ultimately conquering and controlling. If we can't see that, then we're ONLY "HALF"-AWAKE.

thank u fishy :)

I posted this late last night and didn't expect it to gain any traction. I'm personally frustrated and thats why I wrote this. Plenty of people make me uncomfortable but I still try to be thoughtful of their right to be weirdos.

I'm on my phone. I'll click over once I get home.

Thx again for the bump.

'Peace is a powerful message.' Ron Paul

I'm dissapointed

There is no real discussion of where the limits of tolerance begin or end. Its really all just weasel words here, and feel good generalities

Can we initiate force against someone with whom we disagree - obviously not if we are not defending ourselves.

Do we have freedom to criticize others beliefs ? (obviously yes)

but to what degree ? When does verbal criticism become force ?

Can we bar them from our private organizations ? Is that a use of force, or is it freedom of association ?

I agree with shark's comment:

"Verbal criticism becomes force WHEN THE MOTIVATION OF THE AGGRESSOR IS TO DESTROY..and not CORRECT."

I think a lot of it has to do with "INTENT". Are you debating someone simply to try to "humiliate" and make yourself seem superior, or do you have noble intentions with the sole purpose of sharing ideas and opinions without judgement? The idea being that either person involved in the debate can look at a topic from a whole new different perspective one may have never considered before, and being humble and open enough to accept the possibility that you may have been wrong and now you get to learn something, in turn making you a better person. One should never be ashamed or feel ridiculed for being wrong. On the contrary, I think one should be thankful that someone was there to help you see things in a new perspective, and the possibility of having learned something you didn't know before.

Something I'd like to add as well is "emotion" and "assumption". If you can debate your points without "LETTING" emotion, prejudice/pre-conceived notions, and assumptions get in the way, then tolerance should come fairly easy. What do you think?

What was the point of your questions as far as "initiating" force?

sharkhearted's picture

Eloquently said, ecard71.

I agree 100% with what you are saying. That is WISDOM for the ages!

Norfolk, VA

Time to INVESTIGATE the investigators of 9/11. PROSECUTE the prosecutors. EXPOSE the cover-up.

sharkhearted's picture

The Non-Aggression Principle..is about as perfect as one can get

That is: Only use force when needed: To defend your own Natural Rights...and that of others. (Unless in a boxing ring or the like or in a pre-consented S&M relationship etc.).


Even then, verbal criticism can be wrong, when the critic is in error or misinformed.

If you have a private organization, and you want to exclude individuals, then that is your prerogative.

Yes, it IS a use of force...but you still have that natural right to keep people off your private property if you so choose.

But that is a sort of mideval and unevolved approach.

At the end of the day, people should be free to associate (or be left alone) as they choose.

However, the factors of LOVE and compassion and the "better angels of our nature" introduced into this intellectual argument...should not be overlooked or underestimated.

Norfolk, VA

Time to INVESTIGATE the investigators of 9/11. PROSECUTE the prosecutors. EXPOSE the cover-up.


The individual liberty is possible only via private property. Therefore, to bypass private property, socialists and others have substituted individual rights with fake "human rights." Individual rights do not extend by default to public property. Public property must be regulated. If laws are rational, then maximum freedom is protected depending upon actual context of public property. For example, heckling is a violation of free speech, even on public property like public university (but may be tolarated in the street.) Again, socialists bypass limitation of individual rights on public property because that would envoke the contrast with private property.

sharkhearted's picture


Natural rights pre-exist any man-made laws. Legal positivism, like moral relativism, is a FARCE.

Trying to sift through and decipher your NEWSPEAK is difficult enough.

Made simple: Every man and woman is BORN with natural rights to liberty, life, the pursuit of happiness, and legion other natural rights.

Their life or their liberty or their happiness can be taken away.



Norfolk, VA

Time to INVESTIGATE the investigators of 9/11. PROSECUTE the prosecutors. EXPOSE the cover-up.

Michael Nystrom's picture

When does verbal criticism become force?

That is an excellent question, and one that deserves exploration from the NAP crowd. Does the non agression principle apply only to physical violence? Or to words? What about violent thoughts?

Can we bar them from our private organizations ?

Yes, this is established. As I just did, in banning HonorGod. I got tired of reading all the hate being spewed towards homosexuals.

So let that stand as a warning to others here, ahem, who want to keep pushing that angle in the comments. It will not be tolerated. There is a limit to tolerance, and that limit ends when people want to get into other people's business and bedrooms.

I don't want to hear about what goes on in homosexuals' bedrooms, any more than I want to hear about what goes on in heterosexuals' bedrooms. Some men sodomize their wives. I don't want to hear about that either. If it is taking place between two consenting adults, it is none of my business, none of yours, and certainly none of the State's business.

Is that a use of force, or is it freedom of association ?

It is both. I have forcibly removed HonorGod from participation here. Is there any question as to whether I'm justified in doing so?

Good for you Mr. Nystrom. It

Good for you Mr. Nystrom. It is a force disparity issue as well I feel. If a lower caste person abuses me in my country, I cannot do anything, but if I abuse him, I can be booked under the discrimination act.

What people don't get it that these laws are practical for cultural reasons. Therefore forgetting theory and ideology, it is true that in America, gays cannot do hate crimes on straight people, nor can black people be racist to whites. It is a simple thing to comprehend but people can't seem to wrap their minds around it.

The problem I see is that you think think

your "opinion" is "reality", and that alone turns in to a heck of a slippery slope.

I'm curious; So does that mean that I and the others that have down-voted you so far just have a difference of opinion, or does it mean that we are unable to accept reality and are simply wrong? What do you think?

There is a spectrum...some

There is a spectrum...some people tend towards practicality and some towards ideology. The former I consider being more focused on reality and the latter as more focused on their idealized version of it.

I tend towards practicality...

sharkhearted's picture

"If a lower caste person abuses me in my country...

...I cannot do anything, but if I abuse him, I can be booked under the discrimination act."


Define a "lower caste person"?

That term, in and of itself is PATENTLY offensive to the idea of the classical liberalism that created the great American experiment.

Lower caste??? Are you still stuck in the 19th Century?

And if you abuse a "lower caste person"...should you not only be booked under the discrimination act but be tried for those crimes as well??

Lower caste??? Really?? Pathetically out of date.

21st Century News for you VIA the 18th Century Age of Enlightenment: All people are created EQUAL and have NATURAL RIGHTS (oh here I go on my capitalization again)....NATURAL RIGHTS THAT THEY ARE BORN WITH SUCH AS, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE RIGHTS TO LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.


Norfolk, VA

Time to INVESTIGATE the investigators of 9/11. PROSECUTE the prosecutors. EXPOSE the cover-up.

Sometimes for the general

Ok, I'm just editing my post to clear up a point. Our caste system is around 4500-5000 years old and may be older still. It is not hidden as it is embedded into your last name. It is EXTREMELY uncommon to marry outside your caste.

Till very recently caste was a very good indicator of socioeconomic status, till affirmative action changed things for the better.

Despite that caste is ubiquitous though we are doing our best to get rid of it altogether, at least in my generation, it still matters, especially in the context of marriage.

So don't think I'm discriminating, it is simply a fact of life.

Sometimes for the general good, you put aside philosophy look at reality.

Scheduled castes and tribes ( for clarity's sake) were oppressed for millenia, and it was understood that simply freedom without affirmative action would not be the solution.


Jussayin.. I did my best dealing with that asshole. Thank you... thank you.

I'm with u all the way. If you live God.. thats awesome. We all love God. All of us. There is something greater than us. It is not a sin to be a human bring that harms no one. I believe that because their are a billion religions in human history. Nobody is right but we all believe in God.

Tolerance is what can lead the world. We have already done it... and I know deep down tolerance is the key that will enlighten a generation of people. I hope the fruits of our labor were not spoiled on the vine.

Money cannot stop an idea... whose time has come. Our philosophy can change the world.

Peace. Sound money. Liberty... Tolerance.

'Peace is a powerful message.' Ron Paul

"Peace. Sound money. Liberty... Tolerance."

I've had to remind people about that "peace/love" thing after they've asked me if maybe I was on the "wrong" site. Funny how I don't get a response after I point that out to them - LOL.

Say that someone decided to bar people

That supported gay rights, or that had gay sex, from their website/restaurant/Church.

Do they have that right, or is their intolerance not to be tolerated and can we use force to stop them ? the argument is that if we allow intolerance, that eventually society deteriorates into complete intolerance, so it is an act of self defense to use physical force against selected intolerant groups. Not sure I buy that, but it is an interesting argument.

BTW I completely support your right to ban whoever, and generally agree with your decision in this specific case (if that matters).

Michael Nystrom's picture

In theory, I believe you should be able to bar anyone you want

from your club, restaurant, church, website, etc for any reason you choose. I think the key point about voluntary association is that it is voluntary. Both parties have to want to participate. If one party doesn't want to participate, but is forced to, then it is a violation of their fundamental right to be left alone.

That is a form of intolerance, true. But that kind of intolerance is something we have to tolerate in order that we preserve that right (the right to be left alone / the right of voluntary association) for ourselves.

It is true that that could lead to a world of intolerance. And to a certain extent that is the world we live in. At some level, most religions are generally intolerant of one another, as are the major political parties. On another level, we tend to put that aside and work together as well. There is a dynamic balance that goes on, and it can swing from one extreme (i.e. Hitler's Germany) to another though history. E.g. it is illegal to display a swastika in Germany today.

I don't know that there is anyway to fix it once and for all - only to be aware of it, try to mitigate the damage, and get out of the way when things get too hot.

Thank you for your understanding, and your expression of support. I don't like to ban people, especially someone who has been here that long.

I believe there are laws

I believe there are laws against the kind of discrimination the comment talks about.

The reason is just.

The reason is excellent.

We fear that if not for these laws.

We may find out more about human nature than we care to know.

It helps maintain the farce that racists, homophobes, nutjobs are in the minority, and I will freely admit that I fell into both the first two categories at one point in my life. So in an argument I know my opponent's weaknesses, having suffered them myself.

Until these laws condition the population to be tolerant they will remain and maybe even after that so that mankind doesn't regress into discriminatory thought.

Is this right or wrong in the philosophical sense? In the practical sense? That is what I ask you.

power, capacity or act of enduring - Websters 1828 Edition

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul


Bump for Mark Twain.

The Diamond Dog is a real cool cat. | Reporting on the world from an altitude of 420.

+ 1

Good to see this positive post on the front page.

I want to share with you latest tweet from Rand Paul:

We must always embrace individual liberty & enforce the constitutional rights of all Americans-rich, poor, immigrant, native, black, white.

LL on Twitter: http://twitter.com/LibertyPoet
sometimes LL can suck & sometimes LL rocks!
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15


Looks like I am done old friend (HonorGod). My account was just banned because I posted facts of the intolerance of PNichols on this post from the previous postings of her intolerance in the Rand Paul homosexual string.

Funny, the only attacks came from her.

Awaiting a response from the Mods. Once that is done I suspect I will not be back.

I wish you the best, I really do. You have been a steady encouragement over the last 6 yrs for me, as I hope I have been to you.

Cheers my Canadian friend...

first off...

Im a dude. My pic is from the cover of a magazine I published.

Secondly, your posts were extremely offensive.

I feel bad about you being banned and I mean it sincerely. I hope this thread helps you understand my point of view.

I don't knock Christians or Christianity. I also dont knock homosexuals or homosexuality. Neither one is for me but I respect each individual as a human being as long as they harm no one else.

'Peace is a powerful message.' Ron Paul

Hope you get unbanned...

I cherish your work on the DP my friend.
Looking back I especially have fond memories of all your hard work in helping Debra Medina.

Don't know the specifics of why one of the mods banned you.
Hope you get a second chance here.
I hate to see patriots long time members like you being banned.

LL on Twitter: http://twitter.com/LibertyPoet
sometimes LL can suck & sometimes LL rocks!
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

Apparently You Don't Read The Comments

to your comments. P Nicholson wasn't the only one bashing the stuff you said.



She started the whole rant and put words into my post that were not there. Yes, I saw yours and did not reply to you because her initial reply post completely skewed and put some crappy morality into the whole thing. That is the fact of the matter and if you look at the original post I made, you would see that it is the truth.