Emma_85 wrote:If you are a die hard supporter of free speech, you can go and boo someone for making a speech you disagree with. You just shouldn't throw stones through his window or try to take him to court and get him arrested, assassinated whatever, that's all.
Emma_85 wrote:This scientist should be allowed to express his opinion here as all he did it seems was to point out all the reasons why the female gender is under-represented in the sciences and top positions.
edonnelly wrote:Emma_85 wrote:If you are a die hard supporter of free speech, you can go and boo someone for making a speech you disagree with. You just shouldn't throw stones through his window or try to take him to court and get him arrested, assassinated whatever, that's all.
But the point of this thread is to talk about tolerance, not legality or free speech. No one is arguing (at least not yet!) that either of those two examples was or even should be illegal. The question is, do you consider people who "boo someone" they "disagree with" to be tolerant and what exactly do those on the left mean when they say that they are tolerant even though they refuse to even listen to ideas contrary to their own. And, of course, do you consider Johnny Depp to be tolerant?
Bert wrote:bellum paxque wrote: For instance, the point you make about genetics: since, for so long, females were considered inherently inferior,
Inherently inferior? No. Inherently different? Certainly.
PeterD wrote:Emma_85 wrote:This scientist should be allowed to express his opinion here as all he did it seems was to point out all the reasons why the female gender is under-represented in the sciences and top positions.
Emma, Lawrence Summers is not a scientist. He is an economist. Which beckons the question, what professional knowledge -- please do tell, Lawrence -- does he have to comment on the genetic differences between males and females?
Emma_85 wrote:Bert wrote:
Inherently inferior? No. Inherently different? Certainly.
We are inherently different, but that is not the point bellum paxque was making. She was saying that in the past we were often deemed to be the inferior sex of the species, which is true. Not in all cultures at all times, but in general yes.
Paul wrote:Emma raises the issue of "tolerance and respect of all beliefs". I am not at all convinced that, in its matter, tolerance requires respect. In fact tolerance assumes, I think, if not disrespect, then at least a judgment grounded in the apprehension of difference and inferiority. In general, we tolerate that with which we disagree or disapprove. But I don't construe this as license to treat others rudely or to prevent them practicing what they will (I here exclude obvious practices - speech and acts - that no one can or should tolerate).
Cordially,
Paul
1. The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others.
Would that the champions of tolerance on the left were similarly inclined!
Bert wrote:Emma_85 wrote:Bert wrote:
Inherently inferior? No. Inherently different? Certainly.
We are inherently different, but that is not the point bellum paxque was making. She was saying that in the past we were often deemed to be the inferior sex of the species, which is true. Not in all cultures at all times, but in general yes.
I was pointing out that bellum paxque was missing the point.
According to the "reasonably fair-minded summary", Summers spoke about "genetics, i.e., "innate differences"", not inferiority.
Democritus wrote:About Summers -- he said nothing worse about women than is said all the time about men. If he had made precisely the same comparison, but in favor of women rather than men, no one would have cared.
Emma_85 wrote:1. The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others.
Eh... but he was talking about us basically not being able to get top positions in science research and managerial positions, not only because of upbringing, child-raising etc, but also because of genetic differences. So what would those genetic differences be? That we have a gene labled: make most females uninterested in being good at a subject, of course only science subjects, and not wanting to be a being a manager genes? I don't know about you, but to me it sounds more like: less intelligent, less good with people etc... 'less something or other' .
Bert wrote:Emma_85 wrote:1. The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others.
If you respect the beliefs or practices of others, tolerance is not an issue.
I don't think your dictionary reference is correct.
If I were to paraphrase my dictionary, it would amount to your definition if you replace 'respecting' with 'permitting.'
I'll give an example that strikes close to (your) home.
I don't respect Atheism. I can't. It is my firm believe that it is a wrong position. Do I disrespect you because it is your position? No I don't.
As a matter of fact, in some of the discussions that you've had, I respect the way you reason consistent with your belief, while others (whose position I shared) were arguing in a way that was not consistent with their belief.
Eh... but he was talking about us basically not being able to get top positions in science research and managerial positions, not only because of upbringing, child-raising etc, but also because of genetic differences. So what would those genetic differences be? That we have a gene labled: make most females uninterested in being good at a subject, of course only science subjects, and not wanting to be a being a manager genes? I don't know about you, but to me it sounds more like: less intelligent, less good with people etc... 'less something or other' .
He did not say being unable but being under-represented. (I don't know it that is the word he used but if he did then it seems to indicate that he thinks it would be better if the representation were higher.)
Being unable to get the position is not the same as not getting the position. A lot of females may be inclined to go into health care rather than try to aim for the corner office.
Are females inferior because the majority of them opt for caring for the sick, elderly etc? No way. Maybe that is in response to a gene that makes them more caring than males. (That sounds like- better with people etc... 'better something or other' doesn't it?)
(Another reason why the representation in managerial positions is lower for women than for men may be that women may have a shorter stay in the workforce due to raising a family at some point.)
...nare upbringing, time spent raising children, and genetics ...
Emma_85 wrote:Paul wrote:Emma raises the issue of "tolerance and respect of all beliefs". I am not at all convinced that, in its matter, tolerance requires respect. In fact tolerance assumes, I think, if not disrespect, then at least a judgment grounded in the apprehension of difference and inferiority. In general, we tolerate that with which we disagree or disapprove. But I don't construe this as license to treat others rudely or to prevent them practicing what they will (I here exclude obvious practices - speech and acts - that no one can or should tolerate).
Cordially,
Paul
Hmmm.... *goes and looks up tolerance in the dictionary*1. The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others.
sorry to have to make my point like that, but I do think that respect is part of the word tolerance.
Emma85 wrote:Would that the champions of tolerance on the left were similarly inclined!
But are they not more tolerant of other's beliefs that the right? Surely it is not so bad to make a fuss over someone else's beliefs and protest than to try and make laws against them? Am I not correct in believing that the religious right in America wants to ban abortion, stem cell research, IVF (or is IVF better than abortion because it's less fun to protest outside IVF clinics?), gay marriage (get rid of gay's rights in general probably) and want to introduce non scientific theories into science classes etc. ?
Does the left to do something similar? And hey, this is not just a rhethorical question, if they do, please post!
Emma85 wrote:Let's take gays for instance. It is not a life stlye choice so it's not actually their opinions, but their very existance which must be tolerated. If someone believes that these people are 'evil' an 'abomination' etc, then they are hardly being tolerant, because as I pointed out, tolerance includes a certain level of respect.
Emma85 wrote:I think even the most leftist people in the US do not think of a group of people in the US as inherently evil. Hence, they are more tolerant than the right.
Emma_85 wrote:Am I not correct in believing that the religious right in America wants to ban abortion, stem cell research, IVF (or is IVF better than abortion because it's less fun to protest outside IVF clinics?), gay marriage (get rid of gay's rights in general probably) and want to introduce non scientific theories into science classes etc. ?
Does the left to do something similar? And hey, this is not just a rhethorical question, if they do, please post!
Emma_85 wrote: I think even the most leftist people in the US do not think of a group of people in the US as inherently evil. Hence, they are more tolerant than the right.
Emma_85 wrote:Eh... but he was talking about us basically not being able to get top positions in science research and managerial positions, not only because of upbringing, child-raising etc, but also because of genetic differences. So what would those genetic differences be?
Bert wrote:Not because I am being intolerant but because I believe that they are wrong.
Emma, whence the requirement to tolerate everything? If I find something abhorrent, do I not have the right, within the framework of law, to seek to change it?
If you respect or agree with something, why do you need to tolerate it?
As to who is more tolerant, the left or the right, please consider: because it is currently the law of the land, the religious right have no choice but to tolerate the monstrous brutality of partial-birth abortion. The humanist left, as I've said before, can't bear even to hear positions they disagree with. So you tell me, who's got the thicker skins?
Wow. I don't know whether to laugh or cry. The left wing of the Democrat party is an angry, vengeful bunch. Howard Dean, head of the Democratic National Committee, called Republicans "evil"; not some Republicans, all Republicans. Moreover, anyone who professes Christianity is routinely regarded by the humanist left as a being compounded of equal parts stupidity and superstition.
GlottalGreekGeek wrote:If "tolerance" is to be encouraged, then both sides should improve themselves, regardless of who is more intolerant. What we should be discussing is what is tolerance and what kind should be encouraged, not who is more naughty.
Emma_85 wrote:
I think even the most leftist people in the US do not think of a group of people in the US as inherently evil. Hence, they are more tolerant than the right.
That is an extreme statement with a conclusion drawn from it. It is also a misleading statement.
(1) There certainly are leftist people who think that the 'religious right' is evil personified.
(2) Even if there are no leftist people who think of a group of people in the US as inherently evil, this does not mean that they are tolerant of all people.
"The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians."
And
"[Homosexuals] want to come into churches and disrupt church services and throw blood all around and try to give people AIDS and spit in the face of ministers."
If "tolerance" is to be encouraged, then both sides should improve themselves, regardless of who is more intolerant. What we should be discussing is what is tolerance and what kind should be encouraged, not who is more naughty.
GlottalGreekGeek wrote: What we should be discussing is what is tolerance and what kind should be encouraged, not who is more naughty.
How now? How is it that the liberal elite, under the aegis of free speech, can tolerate Churchill's truly hateful remarks, yet cannot afford Summers the same? How is that these champions of tolerance cannot bear even to hear an opinion with which they disagree? To put a fine point on it, why should I trust the "tolerance" taught by such angry and intolerant souls?
Yes, I think I see now that the left do hate the right... I wasn't aware of this before...
Democritus wrote:Yes, I think I see now that the left do hate the right... I wasn't aware of this before...
Careful there, folks, that's me you are talking about. I don't hate anyone.
GlottalGreekGeek wrote:and that we must become more extreme ourselves to shift the tide before it is too late (though I personally disagree with this last part).
Democritus wrote:... but right-wing folks are very quick to accuse anyone of "hating America" just because they oppose the war in Iraq. You can be accused of hating God or hating Christians just because you believe in evolution or in the separation of church and state.
Democritus wrote:The "angry liberal" is a meme deliberately created [by] the people who manage media campaigns for the right wing. It doesn't match the reality. The Republicans are constantly trying to depict Democrats as "angry." I can think of a lot of accurate, pejorative adjectives for Democrats (such as "short-sigted" or "fickle") but "angry" is not one of them.
Democritus wrote:IMHO this whole "hate" meme is part of the victim mentality. If you are the victim of hatred then you are being persecuted, and your opponents are simply evil. It serves as an ad hominem attack and as an obfuscation. If I say that someone "hates," then I shift the conversation to my opponent's emotional state, and away from the content of their ideas. You deligitimize your opponents without actually addressing their arguments.
Paul wrote:Despite some claims to the contrary, I have tried in my previous two posts to say something about what tolerance is; or at least about its origins. I would invite others to do the same.
Paul wrote:Hmm...I know a fair number of right-wing folks. None of them would ever accuse someone of "hating America" because he opposed the war in Iraq. ... Do you, Democritus, know even one conservative who accuses those opposed to the war of "hating America"?
Paul wrote:I see. So my observations about left-wing behavior are actually not my own. I am instead in thrall to powerful right wing media campaign managers. Hilarious!
Paul wrote:Sadly, there are people who hate. In the face of Nazi hatred should the Jews have sought to "address their arguments"? I'm not sure what you are saying.
Sure! You say that now!Paul wrote:I am happy about the direction and tone of this thread.
Damn it, Paul, where is the Greek in you? I like things hot n' spicy.Paul wrote: I hope we can all continue to bring to it, as Will would say, light not heat.
Summers, in a speech on gender differences, listed 3 explanations as to why women are not represented well in the math and sciences. He said that 1) women are unwilling to make the necessary sacrifices, 2) women lack the "intrinsic aptitude" for math and science, and 3) discrimination. He then went on to say, "In my own view, their importance probably ranks in exactly the order that I just described."Paul wrote:Summers is indeed 'merely' an economist. I don't see how that disqualifies him from asking the question. By virtue of his training he is almost certainly adept at mathematics. Moreover, he has enough experience in academia to know that most top teaching positions in the advanced sciences go to men. What more does one need to know in order to ask the question, "Are innate difference between the sexes a possible cause of this disparity?". Are you saying, Peter, that only a trained biologist can ask this question?
I read it. Where does he say that America got what it deserved? And why do you call his remarks hateful? Please explain.Paul wrote:Churchill said that on 9/11/2001 America got what it deserved. His now famous article can be found here http://www.kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/s11/churchill.html. I recommend you read it.
Indeed, Paul, you are always cordial and polite -- two admirable traits. That is why I like you.Paul wrote: Cordially,
Paul
Eureka wrote:Does tolerance of vegetarians require tolerance of people who try to have the eating of meat banned by law?
Would hatred of such people be an act of intolerance?
So, would tolerance of a religion require tolerance of those who try to force that religion's laws on you and yours?
GlottalGreekGeek wrote:And as long as the people trying to change the law, or convert you to their religion, are being civil I think they can certainly be tolerated. I think driving while talking on a cell phone should be against the law (because I spend much time as a pedestrian), and while devout cell-phone-while-driving people may oppose me, I think it is not too much to ask that they use only civil means to stop me, as I should only use civil means to oppose them.
Disagreeing is one thing, but without agreeing to disagree it is an act of provocation. That's why I'm surprised by Bert's complaint that the progressives hate the religious right. After all, since when have opposing political forces ever been all flowers and chocolates?GlottalGreekGeek wrote: Tolerance is not about everybody agreeing, but disagreeing and debating in a civil manner.
So what is a civil manner?
Eureka wrote:But anyway, your attitude that it's okay to push your views onto others if it's via the
law is basically just another form of might is right.
Democritus wrote:Before the invasion there was a huge anti-war demonstration in Washington DC, which included many veterans. They were all dismissed as fascists by Rush Limbaugh.
Democritus wrote:Have you ever heard of Republican talking points memos? Have you ever noticed, listening to the news, how suddenly certain buzzwords and buzz phrases will suddenly be repeated over and over, instantly, in reaction to a certain event? This is no accident. The Republicans are very disciplined about media messages. Much better than the Democrats.
Democritus wrote:My statement was clear -- some people are accused of hatred unfairly. The word is applied too easily nowadays, as a way of avoiding a reasoned debate. People should be allowed to disagree about fundamental issues, without being accused of hatred.
Democritus wrote:IMHO certain liberal groups were the first ones to start accusing opponents of "hate speech" willy-nilly, but the conservatives are now applying the same tactic.
Democritus wrote:I get angry sometimes, like anyone else. Before a meal, I get hungry. At night, I get sleepy. When I work in the yard, I get dirty, and when I shower, I get wet. But my political opinions should not be described as angry, hungry, sleepy, dirty, or wet.
PeterD wrote:Summers, in a speech on gender differences, listed 3 explanations as to why women are not represented well in the math and sciences. He said that 1) women are unwilling to make the necessary sacrifices, 2) women lack the "intrinsic aptitude" for math and science, and 3) discrimination. He then went on to say, "In my own view, their importance probably ranks in exactly the order that I just described."
PeterD wrote:Wow! He's the president of Harvard University? Where they did they find this schmuck?! Look at the order of his list. I like to know why he put "intrinsic aptitude" before discrimination. Anyone with a modicum of critical thinking will see that it does not make any sense. I dare say, should you not do away with discrimination -- adios discrimination! -- first before you entertain even the slightest notion on any genetic differences between the sexes? And the part about women not willing to make the necessary sacrifices was sheer brilliance on larry's part (I think I'll call him larry without the capital L; he does not merit it.). Geez, my mother (like my father), when they immigrated to Canada from Greece 40 years ago, worked two jobs plus she kept house , and raised two boys. Nobody is going to tell me that women are not willing to make sacrifices. Women sacrifice as much, if not more, than men -- period!
PeterD wrote:I read it. Where does he say that America got what it deserved? And why do you call his remarks hateful? Please explain.
PeterD wrote:And speaking of tolerance, how can you compare the brutal reaction Churchill got by the mainstream media (especially Faux News) to something like, "A female MIT scientist walks out during Summer's speech."
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests