Is Tolerance a Lawful thing ?

[TeutonicBerserker]

I guess I just don't agree (even remotely) that morality has anything at all to do with subjective beauty. You're basically saying that better-looking people (by extension from your insect analogy) have more right to exist than uglier people, which I find anti-moral. That's just a gift of genes and has nothing at all to do with morality, but sure, if you think that somehow makes you better than me, I guess there is no reason to keep talking about it.

Beauty is objective

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Beauty is objective

Uh... okay. I don't think you're gonna find a whole lot of people who agree with you there.

Oh, I added to my previous post, that you quoted, but I suspect you missed:

"I wouldn't read too much into my use of the phrase "problematic thinking" - I simply mean that I take issue (I personally have a problem) with that way of thinking. Not that I believe in some kind of thought-police. I just don't agree with it. Nothing more."

 

[Gradine]

So hardly anyone actually believes in Tolerance. Fascists honestly say they don't, and the Progressive, enlightened "folx" who parade it around like a pagan idol always have a convoluted, Dunning-Kruger justification why they don't need to practice it whenever inconvenient. Ironically the only types who seem to believe in Tolerance at all is the small-government, libertarian/conservative, just-wanna-grill types.

Nah, none of this is actually true, and I in fact have to question the scare-quotes around the term folx.

Popper's Paradox explains why it's important, for the preservation of true tolerance, to be intolerant of the intolerant. That's not a "Dunning-Kruger justification why they don't need to practice it whenever inconvenient", it's a philosophically sound necessity, in clear and specific situations, in order to protect the world promised by tolerance.

 

[TeutonicBerserker]

Uh... okay. I don't think you're gonna find a whole lot of people who agree with you there.

I don't mind being in the minority of correct opinion havers.

 

[Gradine]

"Folx" is the dumbest neologism I've ever seen. I mean that from the bottom of my heart.

It's okay to be wrong.

"It's philosophically sound because, it just is ok."

You could read up on Popper's Paradox, as I linked to you, and which explains the reasoning beyond "it just is ok", but that would require coming from a position of good faith, and frankly, I'm not convinced.

 

[TeutonicBerserker]

edit: Gradine removed his posts, rendering mine meaningless

 

[Gradine]

"It's okay to be wrong."
That encapsulates your entire philosophy, and it's wrong.

I don't mind being in the minority of correct opinion havers.

 

[Celebrim]

beh no, Lawful Evil people have no tolerance,
so, if Lawful Good are very tolerant,
it should mean Tolerance a Good behavior,
as opposed to Evil as being a Cruel Thing;

I like it in Scholarship Level x Tolerance as an Intelligence matter
( scholarship Level ==> Knowledge, or Proficiencies datas )

So, first you'll have to define specifically what you mean by tolerance. By tolerance I mean, "the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with." I would suggest that tolerance is very much associated with patience and stoicism and self-control, and those are very much Lawful Good virtues.

Typically when Chaotics attacks the morals of Lawfuls it's because they have an overly simplistic stereotyped view of the Lawful morality. It's not at all unusual for a Lawful moral system to define specifically the areas of personal freedom of choice that individuals are allowed, and then for that system to say specifically, "Just you made a different choice doesn't mean that other individual made the wrong choice. You must tolerate the differences you see between yourself and others." Like really, even though strictly speaking my moral code is not Lawful, it always annoys me to hear average Americans discussing lawful morality because it's foreign to them. Like this discussion I feel needs to be headed up by someone from South Korea who wants their parents to arrange their marriage, or a pious Mormon, or a very pious Catholic, or someone else with a deep sense of belonging to a community. Otherwise it tends to be ugly stereotypes.
Now a very strictly Lawful society might well be all about erasing all individual differences, and in that case tolerance most certainly won't be a virtue. But Lawful Good systems are obviously and by definition compromising on Lawful principles like uniformity or conformity because they are also equally celebrating Good as Law. So when you ask about Lawful Good, you are very much complicating the discussion. The Lawful Good adherent has things the law requires him to be tolerant of, while at the same time requires him to have things he will not tolerate. And for the most part, most long lasting human ethical codes tend towards that 'Lawful Good' part of the spectrum, at least in theory, because really attempts to erase all human differences run into the problem that they are impractical and anti-human and run down hill. The theoretical far end of the Pure Lawful spectrum only works for something like a Modron or maybe The Borg. It's an alien thing and even most human fiction on the subject deals with how impractical it is.
The other thing to note is that intolerance in a broad sense can be associated with almost any alignment. Like even something like Chaotic Good has minimum standards of behavior and the non-altruistic Chaotics (CN and CE) have interpretations where the adherent is intolerant of everything that isn't self, and they only differ in how they respond to the not-self. And all alignments are by definition intolerant of each other.

And part of this has to do probably with the fact that even though the alignment system is reasonably complex, it really can't fit reality exactly and so some concepts just don't fit exactly anywhere because were have 2 axis and the real world has like N.

 

[Gradine]

I'm the one who brought up the "philosopher" who made up the justification for left-liberals to tell themselves why it's ok to mandate tolerance for what they want and censorship of what they don't. Just lampshade it, act like it's a profound mystery, and pretend it's true.

Anyone who doesn't need it as a patch for their worldview can easily see that it invalidates Tolerance as a cardinal principle, but Dunning-Krugerites and those heavily invested in Progressive ideology are simply incapable of seeing that.

Putting scare quotes around the word philosopher does not immediately invalidate Karl Popper's bona fides nor his arguments, and neither does quoting pop-psychology or using the term Progressive as a pejorative.

"I'm not convinced."
Let Kenneth Copeland stare into your soul until you become convinced.

I needed to Google this dude. I'm supposed to find this man convincing? Of anything?

 

[TeutonicBerserker]

edit: it looks like the conversation was deleted, rendering my replies meaningless