Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Momo is Still Not Real (But Memes Are)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 7774648" data-attributes="member: 4937"><p>*sigh*</p><p></p><p>For those that don't get the above exchange, let me point out that for the claim, "Intolerance of intolerance is a far cry from intolerance of someone's religion.", in point of fact I'm actually the only one in the conversation that has suggested a moral obligation to be tolerant of "someone's religion" and a path to effectively practicing that.</p><p></p><p>Why am I being called a bigot in this? Keep in mind, I've suggested an obligation to tolerance of even opposing offensive viewpoints, an obligation that extends to even when those opposing viewpoints are insulting. Only I have openly said that I have to try to be patient with and not hostile to things I actually disagree with. So I'm being called the bigot in this exchange even thought I'm actually calling for the broader and higher standard of tolerance than the person I'm arguing with. (Indeed, it's also been asserted in this thread, I've uncareful with the truth by selectively quoting words where I was being careful with the truth, so we are par for the course.)</p><p></p><p>Why does pauldanieljohnson think he's less the bigot here? Because I've made the common sense assertion that I actually believe the things I say I believe on the basis that I think that they are right and correct, and that in this I'm no different than pretty much everyone I've ever met. He asserts that this is 'intolerant' and 'bigoted', and thus he's free not to tolerate my position. But in point of fact, in asserting this, he's just freed himself up to have no obligations of tolerance toward pretty much the entire human race, on the grounds he will always be able to assert that they are the bigots. </p><p></p><p>Religion is a perfect case in point of exactly what he has allowed himself to not tolerate. All religions assert that they have some fundamental truth regarding the big questions of 'life, the universe, and everything', and the followers of those religions follow them precisely because they believe those answers are correct and more correct than the alternatives. Christians, Moslems, Jews, Pagans, Satanists, Buddists, Hindus and every other thing you can name all believe this. They all assert that superiority of their answers to the others, even when and especially when they contradict each other on these big questions. I asserted in several places, that my beliefs dictate that I still maintain tolerance in the face of these disagreements, but pauldanieljohnson has reserved right for himself in the name of being intolerant of the intolerant, to label all these groups are bigots for thinking themselves right, and so removed his obligation to actually tolerate religion in practice. </p><p></p><p>And, this isn't just limited to religion. An atheist will surely say, "God does not exist. I believe there is sufficient proof in the world to establish the truth that God does not exist. This belief is inherently superior and grounded in more evidence than past superstitions. My belief is correct." If he does not make these assertions, then on what grounds does he call himself an atheist? And if pauldanieljohnson is not a hypocrite, he would say, "How can you assert the superiority of your beliefs like that? You are a bigot and therefore I'm not required to tolerate you!" Whereas I will simply assert, "Well, though I can see why you might think that, I believe you are wrong, and I can't agree with you, in the mean time I will treat you as I would want to be treated myself were I you, I hope we can continue vigorous and respectful debate over these things, and I will extend according to my beliefs empathy and sympathy toward you." </p><p></p><p>Indeed, following the line of logic above, for any set of beliefs that differ from his own he can quickly label anyone who disagrees with his claim that no viewpoint is superior (except incidentally his own) a bigot, and there after free himself mentally from any obligation to tolerance.</p><p></p><p>Indeed, he has already done so in this thread. </p><p></p><p>So, again, of the two of us, only I am asserting the difficult obligation to tolerant of people with different beliefs than my own. Imperfect though I may fulfill that duty, at least I'll try to carry it. Someone who goes around yelling, "Bigot!": he shrugged of that duty already.</p><p></p><p>Last little bit. I can certainly agree that 'different' does not equal inferior, but that little red herring gets us no where if we try to follow it. The assertion depends on us agreeing to what is subjective, but beyond things like, "What is your favorite color?" and as soon as we hit something even as controversial as "Does pineapple belong on pizza?" (joking), we are likely to have differences of opinion over what is subjective and what is not. Different communities have differences of opinion over what is subjective (what my faith often calls the adiaphora) and what is obligatory.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 7774648, member: 4937"] *sigh* For those that don't get the above exchange, let me point out that for the claim, "Intolerance of intolerance is a far cry from intolerance of someone's religion.", in point of fact I'm actually the only one in the conversation that has suggested a moral obligation to be tolerant of "someone's religion" and a path to effectively practicing that. Why am I being called a bigot in this? Keep in mind, I've suggested an obligation to tolerance of even opposing offensive viewpoints, an obligation that extends to even when those opposing viewpoints are insulting. Only I have openly said that I have to try to be patient with and not hostile to things I actually disagree with. So I'm being called the bigot in this exchange even thought I'm actually calling for the broader and higher standard of tolerance than the person I'm arguing with. (Indeed, it's also been asserted in this thread, I've uncareful with the truth by selectively quoting words where I was being careful with the truth, so we are par for the course.) Why does pauldanieljohnson think he's less the bigot here? Because I've made the common sense assertion that I actually believe the things I say I believe on the basis that I think that they are right and correct, and that in this I'm no different than pretty much everyone I've ever met. He asserts that this is 'intolerant' and 'bigoted', and thus he's free not to tolerate my position. But in point of fact, in asserting this, he's just freed himself up to have no obligations of tolerance toward pretty much the entire human race, on the grounds he will always be able to assert that they are the bigots. Religion is a perfect case in point of exactly what he has allowed himself to not tolerate. All religions assert that they have some fundamental truth regarding the big questions of 'life, the universe, and everything', and the followers of those religions follow them precisely because they believe those answers are correct and more correct than the alternatives. Christians, Moslems, Jews, Pagans, Satanists, Buddists, Hindus and every other thing you can name all believe this. They all assert that superiority of their answers to the others, even when and especially when they contradict each other on these big questions. I asserted in several places, that my beliefs dictate that I still maintain tolerance in the face of these disagreements, but pauldanieljohnson has reserved right for himself in the name of being intolerant of the intolerant, to label all these groups are bigots for thinking themselves right, and so removed his obligation to actually tolerate religion in practice. And, this isn't just limited to religion. An atheist will surely say, "God does not exist. I believe there is sufficient proof in the world to establish the truth that God does not exist. This belief is inherently superior and grounded in more evidence than past superstitions. My belief is correct." If he does not make these assertions, then on what grounds does he call himself an atheist? And if pauldanieljohnson is not a hypocrite, he would say, "How can you assert the superiority of your beliefs like that? You are a bigot and therefore I'm not required to tolerate you!" Whereas I will simply assert, "Well, though I can see why you might think that, I believe you are wrong, and I can't agree with you, in the mean time I will treat you as I would want to be treated myself were I you, I hope we can continue vigorous and respectful debate over these things, and I will extend according to my beliefs empathy and sympathy toward you." Indeed, following the line of logic above, for any set of beliefs that differ from his own he can quickly label anyone who disagrees with his claim that no viewpoint is superior (except incidentally his own) a bigot, and there after free himself mentally from any obligation to tolerance. Indeed, he has already done so in this thread. So, again, of the two of us, only I am asserting the difficult obligation to tolerant of people with different beliefs than my own. Imperfect though I may fulfill that duty, at least I'll try to carry it. Someone who goes around yelling, "Bigot!": he shrugged of that duty already. Last little bit. I can certainly agree that 'different' does not equal inferior, but that little red herring gets us no where if we try to follow it. The assertion depends on us agreeing to what is subjective, but beyond things like, "What is your favorite color?" and as soon as we hit something even as controversial as "Does pineapple belong on pizza?" (joking), we are likely to have differences of opinion over what is subjective and what is not. Different communities have differences of opinion over what is subjective (what my faith often calls the adiaphora) and what is obligatory. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Momo is Still Not Real (But Memes Are)
Top