ewv,
Your comment shows up twice on the thread. You might want to delete one of them. I do think this last line is key:
"...It makes a difference whether one thinks that one is dealing with human errors of knowledge or with human evil."

The problem with the word "tolerance" is that it has been hijacked to mean the opposite. The Newspeak version of "tolerance" is akin to the Democratic Republic of North Korea and Obama's Open Government.

Emoji.com 😉

CG is a compulsive contrarian, a gadfly who plays by irritating others as his private sport. On progressive sites, to be a burr in their shoe, he spouts Objectivist tenets that he undoubtedly picked up in the Gulch, so some gulchers tend to make allowances for him.

But he is a chameleon from moment to moment. That makes him just short of a troll because he tapdances his way through dialogue with words that seem to make sense, to con people into taking him seriously. Mainly he wants to get a rise out of people, to get attention; the more agitated, the better.

Just look at the impassioned essay and length of this thread that he has triggered. What an ego trip! No criticism, no negative marks faze him. He exploits people's patience and interest in helping him to "learn", and he plays to see how long he can keep that yo-yo going. It could be amusing to watch as he tunes his volume up and down, retreating, advancing, feinting like a fencing clown. He is a veritable psych lab. But it gets old fast, and having seen through his trickery I no longer waste time reading his inputs.

It grieves me that so many good minds here have been victimized and had their precious time and energy wasted by a manipulative con. Ignoring him completely ("but I don't think of you") is the best remedy.

dbhalling: well put! Ayn said, paraphrased: Everyone has a right to make their own decisions but they have no right to force that on others. That's the problem with government. It uses the power of the gun to force people to do what it deems necessary, usually for its own purpose and not the individual.

Tolerance is what the ruling class expects of us, but not of themselves.

Tolerance of what exactly? Murder? Stupidity? Hubris? Opposing Viewpoints?

I have no tolerance for stupidity. By stupidity I do not mean making mistakes, but the stupidity of repeating the same mistakes over and over.

I have no tolerance for people trying to SHOVE their preference down my throat by use of the Government or other means of coercive force.

I have absolutely ZERO tolerance for lack of reason when presented with overwhelming FACTS.

I have ZERO tolerance for any propagation of Global Warming caused by man, when I can, as well as others prove that this is a total hoax perpetrated by people trying to get rich, i.e. Al Gore. ALL global warming models and "science" uses Bayesian analysis which is a seriously flawed mechanism to prove anything other than a philosophical argument.

In my opinion just like using the word "Poor" or "Rich", you must have a very specific and clear definition you are using. What is tolerance, and tolerance of what under what context? Hitler was not tolerant of Jews. Gays in general are not tolerant of straight people and their rights when it conflicts with their view.

Define "Poor" or "Rich." Define "Tolerant."

Ayn Rand was a very benevolent person, but is also known for her anger at the irrational -- a response arising from the fact that she saw too clearly the consequences of evil ideas. The principle of moral judgment and its crucial reliance on objectivity was explained in her 1962 essay "How Does One Lead a Rational Life in an Irrational Society?", reissued in her anthology The Virtue of Selfishness. She emphasized, "Judge, and be prepared to be judged."

How one responds to a particular person depends on his actions, not thought alone, but advocacy of evil ideas and their implementation _is_ an action. Most of our interactions with other people are in the form of expression of thoughts -- ranging from musing to threats. Objectivity requires maintaining context.

From the article:

"The opposite of moral neutrality is not a blind, arbitrary, self-righteous condemnation of any idea, action or person that does not fit one's mood, one's memorized slogans or one's snap-judgment of the moment. Indiscriminate tolerance and indiscriminate condemnation are not two opposites: they are two variants of the same evasion. To declare that 'everybody is white' or 'everybody is black' or 'everybody is neither white nor black, but gray,' is not a moral judgment, but an escape from the responsibility of moral judgment."

"To judge means: to evaluate a given concrete by reference to an abstract principle or standard. It is not an easy task; it is not a task that can be performed automatically by one's feelings, 'instincts' or hunches. It is a task that requires the most precise, the most exacting, the most ruthlessly objective and rational process of thought. It is fairly easy to grasp abstract moral principles; it can be very difficult to apply them to a given situation, particularly when it involves the moral character of another person. When one pronounces moral judgment, whether in praise or in blame, one must be prepared to answer 'Why?' and to prove one's case—to oneself and to any rational inquirer."

"The policy of always pronouncing moral judgment does not mean that one must regard oneself as a missionary charged with the responsibility of 'saving everyone's soul'—nor that one must give unsolicited moral appraisals to all those one meets. It means: (a) that one must know clearly, in full, verbally identified form, one's own moral evaluation of every person, issue and event with which one deals, and act accordingly; (b) that one must make one's moral evaluation known to others, when it is rationally appropriate to do so."

"This last means that one need not launch into unprovoked moral denunciations or debates, but that one must speak up in situations where silence can objectively be taken to mean agreement with or sanction of evil. When one deals with irrational persons, where argument is futile, a mere 'I don't agree with you' is sufficient to negate any implication of moral sanction. When one deals with better people, a full statement of one's views may be morally required. But in no case and in no situation may one permit one's own values to be attacked or denounced, and keep silent."

"...It makes a difference whether one thinks that one is dealing with human errors of knowledge or with human evil."

Fundamental to this topic is Leonard Peikoff's essay "Fact and Value", written in response to David Kelley's attempt to turn "toleration" into a fundmamental virtue, and which you can find at http://www.peikoff.com/essays_and_articl... and at https://ari.aynrand.org/issues/culture-a...

I hate "politically correct" too.

Would tolerance be something like letting Obama finish his term in office? Is it just tolerance or is it something more, like perhaps racial tolerance? Are his follows tolerant or could it be construed as something more like stupidity? Is tolerance letting those that think Guam might turn over, or those that question generals about wind power on the battlefield during the battle, or those that promote and or perform illegal acts for personal gain, rule us by making our laws?

Are those here in the Gulch just tolerant of our leadership, or is there another word that describes it better? Will it ever evolve into something else, or perhaps build on those that have had enough, to promote the vote to get them out?

With all the issues we disagree with, are we doing enough to change them, or are we just being tolerant until the next cycle of politics kicks in? How did we solve our disagreements about slavery? Will it come down to something similar if we continue on a similar path for another term or two or three of office? Which side would the military be on? I think this is a dangerous time in our lives. When we're so split in every category and on every subject. and when one side plays `unfair' about getting their point across because they refuse to express the real point, we need to decide which way we want to go. Unfortunately there is no tolerance to splitting the country down the Mississippi and letting everyone make their own choice. The majority of those on our coasts could or might cause us to crack open and break at the Mississippi and perhaps tip us all over.

I guess that makes me a troll. ;) I had multiple purposes in this thread.

a) prove your last point that polite discourse can frustrate and madden people - as it maddened me with regard to CG after a very long time;

b) get CG to realize that error tolerance is not virtuous;

c) publicize that I just came to the realization that error tolerance is no virtue.

You, LS, and several others ought to be taking this as a high compliment in having been proven correct.

I think that my opening remarks clearly reflect all three of those goals.

Ultimately, he demonstrates that polite discourse can frustrate and madden people if the intent is to obfuscate, create double meaning, manipulate. The post has 13 points and growing. Most reading the post have not figured out what is actually its intent. A perfect demonstration of disruption, in my view. :)

On an approval scale from 0 to 10, where 0 is Roark when he was doing the bricklaying work and 10 is Peter Keeting at the height of approval of others, I'm certainly below 5.

Yep.

I actually was being quite honest in both meanings. Error tolerance is only acceptable for children, particularly one's own. I also very much meant that other Gulchers' opinions have influenced my opinion on this subject. It is rare for me to have a change of opinion, but it does happen.

A tossed word salad.

For a long time, I was trying to be subtle about convincing you about how out of place you are around here. Now I am not being so subtle.

Sometimes a pitcher throws a changeup just when everyone thinks that the fastball is coming just to keep the hitter honest.

I was so frustrated and confused with this post yesterday that I did not comment. For one, j is never vague or confusing. Also, it is not in his nature to purposely manipulate. The post enjoys 13 points and 59 comments and most of us were had. LOL excellent work there, professor.

"I got precisely the reaction I wanted from CG"
I meant no offense by my comment, which was intended to be humorous.
Are you literally saying you're writing things to get reactions from other people rather than to figure stuff out?

I knew it was intentional. I just think there is a dishonesty factor to it. Especially on a post about virtues. What good is honesty if it's cloaked and confusing?

Me to, along with words strung together that say and mean nothing.

I like the thumbs-up icon.

Well, goodness! And in kind to you for this thought provoking post. 👍