On Mon, 4 Aug 2008, Rich wrote:
> "...so there simply is no room for them to be open minded or tolerant." by 
> Ian Smith?
> 
> Is open-minded, or what you call tolerant universally beneficial or 
> advantageous to a society?  Why? Can you think of any circumstances under 
> which tolerance may be a disadvantage?  I wonder if we need to be more 
> definitive in the ideas we present as "possibly" universal.  In my humble 
> opinion, I think the politically correct idea of  "tolerance" has strayed so 
> far from practical usefulness that it has actually 

Of course there are times it can be a disadvantage. Nothing is absolute.  
But I think I'll define those two terms here to clarify what I meant.

What I mean by tolerant is that you have to accept the fact that there 
are people out there that belive things you find terrible, and disbelive 
things you hold dear.  They exist, and have every right to exist just as 
you do.

You are free to try and change their mind, to teach them your views, but 
you can not use force or laws to make them chainge or get rid of them.
So no holy wars.  No passing laws to regulate morality.  And yes, this 
includes both sides.. liberals and conservatives both are guilty of trying 
to pass laws to make people moral.  

What I mean by open minded is to always be willing to question your 
beliefs, and be open to the possibility that maybe, somehow, maybe, 
possibly you could be wrong.  This is flatly impossible in many belief 
systems, which is why I say they are incompatable.  You must belive, must 
not question, you are right and that is all there is to it.

We can think and reason.  We were either given this gift by a higher being 
for a purpose, or it just happened.. but either way it is a terrible waste 
not to use it.

--
Ian Smith
www.ian.org
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist