Quote:
Originally Posted by rjwood  Intersting take on it.
I see tolerance (tolerating) as a passive verb, if you will allow me. I guess there are times when I see it on more conditional grounds, as I think you are suggesting. When I torerate something or someone, it is usually because I have no vested interest in what they may be doing or saying, nor do I inject or project my conditions on them (if I find myself doing that, I usually realize I need to re-examine my motives and/or intentions). I don't make a right/wrong judgement about their actions or activities, unless I see it as violating anothers civil, human or other naturally afforded rights, and that usually has to cross a certain threshold of precieved invasion which is internal.
Acceptance, for me involves that vested interest I spoke of earlier. Whether that interest be important or close to me personally or at a distance, makes little difference. It infers, at a minimum, that some consent on my part is necessary, |
The thing that always comes to my mind when I think of the distinction between tolerance and acceptance is the gay movement. I believe in tolerance for homosexuals. I think they have every right to expect tolerance, but I don't think they should expect acceptance from everyone - especially if they cross a line.
Take the Boy Scout thing. I'm sure as a whole, the Scouts are tolerant of gays - they don't go out looking for them to beat up, etc. But they aren't accepting of them to the point they allow them to be Scout masters. Private organization.
Another illustration: Someone decides they can't live another day without a tatoo placed on their neck and maybe a hunk of mettle or two punched through a nose, cheek, eybrow, etc. I can tolerate that. To each their own.
But when he comes to me wanting a job, there isn't going to be acceptance. I won't hire him. He might not want to be accepting of my choice, but he is going to tolerate it.
BTW, did I completely take this thread off topic? Sorry.