alexr_rwx: (coffee)
Alex R ([personal profile] alexr_rwx) wrote2004-10-19 12:01 am

*back!*

So I'm back in Atlanta, and I think these next few days are going to be busy indeed... compilers is due on *shudder* Thursday, and I need to get stuff done for research Really Soon, and I need to get going on that dad-blammed NLU project (but that's going to be really cool, actually -- we're totally going to do machine learning techniques and train our agent on Atlanta Latino so's it can do automated translation...)... and ...

"It's not where you come from -- it's go and go get it."
-- The Mighty Mighty Bosstones, "Where You Come From"

I feel good. I'm ready to get down to business.

And I think it turns out that my mother [livejournal.com profile] dramamamalama is more tolerant than I am -- particularly when it comes to people whom I view as having destructively smallminded and Patently Wrong viewpoints -- but that might just mean that I'm 22 and more than a bit paranoid. This came up when we were discussing her new job, which is helping out with the music department at the local Baptist church...
agonistes: a house in the shadow of two silos shaped like gramophone bells (tricksy)

[personal profile] agonistes 2004-10-19 08:55 pm (UTC)(link)
Something that I think a lot of people forget (or just don't realize) is that practicing tolerance doesn't mean acceptance of a viewpoint you don't agree with -- and that gently debating and being a charming and polite devil's advocate isn't hypocritical, when it comes to being tolerant of the intolerant.
ext_110843: (juggling)

[identity profile] oniugnip.livejournal.com 2004-10-19 09:03 pm (UTC)(link)
*applause* Well said! Such insight and poise!
agonistes: a house in the shadow of two silos shaped like gramophone bells (folksmen!)

[personal profile] agonistes 2004-10-19 09:49 pm (UTC)(link)
It should be noted that I also do parties.

[identity profile] child-herald.livejournal.com 2004-10-19 09:10 pm (UTC)(link)
I didn't say acceptance of viewpoints was mandatory; I said that declaring people with beliefs you don't share to be "destructively smallminded" is just that: destructively smallminded.
ext_110843: (Default)

[identity profile] oniugnip.livejournal.com 2004-10-19 09:22 pm (UTC)(link)
For example: clinging to a literalist interpretation of the Bible when it comes to the creation story, I would say, is destructively smallminded.

The reason for this: it gets in the way of honest scientific inquiry, in that people who believe the myth and think that other people should, too... legislate with their viewpoint in mind.

And that doesn't help bring up more evolutionary biologists, now does it?

Also destructively smallminded -- perhaps more immediately and obviously so -- is the idea that it's okay to kill in a holy-war setting.

I'm not saying I've got the big picture -- I'm saying it's very clear to me that many other people don't either, and the problem there is that they don't realize their own ignorance. It's not about not sharing beliefs; you're still missing my point.
agonistes: a house in the shadow of two silos shaped like gramophone bells (jeff)

[personal profile] agonistes 2004-10-19 09:22 pm (UTC)(link)
Ah, but I wasn't replying to you. :)

[identity profile] child-herald.livejournal.com 2004-10-20 09:34 am (UTC)(link)
My apologies. ^__^

[identity profile] dramamamalama.livejournal.com 2004-10-20 11:00 am (UTC)(link)
Of course you don't have to accept another persons views to be tolerant, I think that that is the definition of tolerance, peacefully coexisting or to quote the New World dictionary: Freedom to hold religious views that differ from the established ones. Debating is fabulous, but are we always charming and polite? Is that a requirement? If you throw out charming and polite, are you then intolerant? Hmmm, I wonder...
agonistes: a house in the shadow of two silos shaped like gramophone bells (leon)

[personal profile] agonistes 2004-10-20 11:46 am (UTC)(link)
We're not always charming and polite, no -- but I think we should be. There's a big difference in responding to the opinion (for example) that God is a trinity with "Oh, really? Why do you believe that?" as opposed to "You're wrong, and here's why." One is charming and polite and non-confrontational. The other doesn't allow for polite and friendly debate, which is what is optimal.

My opinions on this are colored by my own religious upbringing, of course. :) Since we don't have anything we're required to have faith in, there are lots of opinions in our congregations regarding the answers to the big questions. Tolerance is covered to a great extent in Sunday School, and both when I was small and now I've found it easier to be tolerant when two people who disagree are polite and respectful of the other's view on things. It's when people issue blanket "You're-wrong-and-I'm-right" statements that problems happen. So in other words, yes, if you're not polite and respectful of other views when you question those views, you're intolerant. :)