The Instigator
Gaznew01
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points
The Contender
lauren1001
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Are we actually becoming Intolerant while claiming to be Tolerant

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Gaznew01
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/2/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 773 times Debate No: 53904
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

Gaznew01

Pro

While the World is going through a seismic change both geographically and socially we are faced with a strange paradox, tolerance. On the one hand tolerance has come to the forefront in the Western World of late, in regards to Race, Sexual Identity and Immigration. However a paradoxically worrying trend has arisen, like a Phoenix from a fire which is the fact that we appear to be going backwards, or more precisely more intolerant.
Take for instance the argument for Gay Marriage. While the Gay community argues the fact that they want the right afforded every heterosexual couple who marry in Church, their argument leaves an undercurrent and hint of intolerance.
Gays want the right to marry in Church. However they know that the Church has teachings and Religious Beliefs that prevents the Church from marrying same sex couples and for this reason the Church suffers and are attacked not only by the Gay community but Leftist organisations.
Now. If tolerance, true tolerance were to be applied, the Church would not be attacked or criticised for exercising the right to refuse the marrying of same sex couples on the premise that due to a tolerant and democratic society they are afforded their right to refuse. However we find this to be the opposite of that which is reality.
Now we can look at Immigration. While the EU, has opened up the doorway to live and work across Europe, we find a worrying tide of Nationalism within the countries of the EU, countering the influx of immigrants to varying nations.
While the EU, produces laws and Human Rights Charters aimed at creating and maintaining tolerance within nations we find a rise of militancy, unrest and intolerance.
We also find that Race produces intolerance within contemporary 21st century nations.
So I ask you this. Are we really Tolerant?
lauren1001

Con

First I would like to state that I agree with most of your points and that in a sense movements such as the gay rights movement are hypocritical. But if the question is are we tolerant I would say yes we are.

From this point on, everything stated is from a US point of view of everyday life in the US and nations like it (UK, France, etc...) compared to the rest of the world.

So if w look back on history we can see how far we've come from being intolerant people. Just take a trip to NYC and you will see just how amazingly integrated we are. No one takes into account people's race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation. There are racist/sexist/ just plainly intolerant people and there always will be but you can't let them be the poster girls of our society. Muslims, Christians, and Jews live in peace here. African-Americans, Chinese-Americans, Latin-Americans, English-Americans all live together. No ones killing each other or sitting on different parts of the restaurant.

There are still hate-crimes out there but there numbers are highly inflated. Why? because it's news. You're more likely to hear something about a swastika being spray painted on some Jewish families garage than a headline saying "Local Muslim family gets served at a Jewish Restaurant" or "Black man marries White girl" or even "Straight kid is friend with Gay guy." It's not news, it's not shocking. It's perfectly normal and there's no reason to report it. There may still be intolerance in our society but the amount of it is highly inflated by our imaginations and maybe, just maybe, we should add on the other side, the unseen deeds before we call ourselves intolerant.
Debate Round No. 1
Gaznew01

Pro

While the points you made are highly relevant, I still contend that we lean more toward being intolerant than tolerant.
Take for example the Muslim populace of the UK as well as the US. When the terrible events of 9/11 signalled the beginning of the War on Terror, and a Global Jihad was called upon for every Muslim, to fulfil against any country that supported the US, I believe, that the Muslim communities in both countries were by majority largely silent, bearing in mind they reside and make their homes within these two countries. Also by their own admission, the Western countries they reside, are incompatable with their way of life. And so it follows they try to subvert the cultures they chose to live with and turn their way of life to suit their religious beliefs and way of life. That is not a tolerant action to take for the country you have chosen to reside and make your home.
Or we may take the recent case of Donald Sterling. While the comments were racist in nature they clearly do not differ from any racial comment Al Sharpton may make concerning white people. The only difference is the fact that Donald Sterling received a life Ban and Al Sharpton gets his own show.
"White folks was [sic] in caves while we was building empires". We taught philosophy and astrology and mathematics before Socrates and them Greek homos ever got around to it."
Clearly an intolerant point of view by Al Sharpton, but which was overlooked and allowed to slide.
There is clearly one rule for one and one for another in society which makes a mockery of claiming to be an all tolerant society. Donald Sterling, clearly made unsavoury remarks, but in doing so had his freedom to do so taken away from him, while Al Sharpton, was allowed to make those remarks and keep his freedom to do so.
Or take for instance the case of Jeremy Clarkson, the British TV presenter who was witch hunted and vilified for nothing other than mumbling his way through an age old nursey rhyme and then by his own admission saying not to use that take in the recording due to the fact it contained a racist word. He had to go so far as to practically get on his knees and beg forgiveness.
We are a society that judges people on what they say, their points of view,whether they like or dislike an individual or certain sections of society and vilifies those who fall short of what those who make the law deem unsavoury. In so doing, my view is that we are leaning more and more towards an Orwellian future as we strive to hammer home to every citizen the law of tolerance. This can only breed intolerance, in my view.
While outwardly, contemporary society looks and feels tolerant, undercurrents of true intolerance run deep.
As a very famous MP in Britain said, " We must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting the annual inflow of some 50,000 dependents, who are for the most part the material of the future growth of the immigrant-descended population. It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre."

"As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding. Like the Roman, I seem to see "the River Tiber foaming with much blood."
This speech warned of the intolerance it would create in Britain, but the politicians instead of acting on it chose to condemn the man and speech and continued an open door policy and a deep chasm was rent through British society.
For this speech which by the way has come true, he was vilified and made a political pariah, deserted by those who should have stood by him. Where was the tolerance for this mans point of view. His foresight, his intellectual truth's, his freedom afforded him by the democracy he lived in. There was none. I shall say that again, there was none.
lauren1001

Con

lauren1001 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Gaznew01

Pro

I believe that the more you push people by political means to create a more utopic all tolerant society, the very opposite shall occur.
Take the EU for example, "There is no need to be tolerant to the intolerant" " European Framework National Statute for the Promotion of Tolerance, Article 4.
We can see straight away a dark and sinister politically controlling framework taking place in contemporary society.
According to European Dignity Watch, a civil rights watchdog based in Brussels,

The principles of freedom of contract and the freedom to live according to one's personal moral views are in danger of being superseded by a newly developed concept of 'equality.' It would undermine freedom and self-determination for all Europeans and subject the private life of citizens to legal uncertainty and the control of bureaucrats. It is about governmental control of social behavior of citizens. These tendencies begin to give the impression of long-passed totalitarian ideas and constitute an unprecedented attack on citizens' rights.
When viewed in the broader context of the ETD, the ECTR document is so audacious in scope, while at the same time so vague in defining its terminology, that critics say the proposal, if implemented, would open a Pandora's Box of abuse, thereby effectively shutting down the right to free speech in Europe.

According to Section 1 (d), for example, the term "tolerance" is broadly defined as "respect for and acceptance of the expression, preservation and development of the distinct identity of a group." Section 2 (d) states that the purpose of the statute is to "condemn all manifestations of intolerance based on bias, bigotry and prejudice."

An explanatory note to Section 2 states: "Religious intolerance is understood to cover Islamophobia" but it provides no definition at all of "Islamophobia," a term invented by the Muslim Brotherhood in the 1990s. If taken to its logical conclusion, Section 2 would presumably ban all critical scrutiny of Islam and Islamic Sharia law, a key objective of Muslim activist groups for more than two decades.

The document also declares that "tolerance must be practiced not only by governmental bodies but equally by individuals." Section 3 (iv) elaborates on this: "Guarantee of tolerance must be understood not only as a vertical relationship (government-to-individuals) but also as a horizontal relationship (group-to-group and person-to-person). It is the obligation of the government to ensure that intolerance is not practiced either in vertical or in horizontal relationships."
According to Section 4 (f) (i) of the document: "There is no need to be tolerant to the intolerant. This is especially important as far as freedom of expression is concerned." Section 5 (a) states: "Tolerance (as defined in Section 1(d)) must be guaranteed to any group, whether it has long-standing societal roots or it is recently formed, especially as a result of migration from abroad."

Section 6 states: "It goes without saying that enactment of a Statute for the Promotion of Tolerance does not suffice by itself. There must be a mechanism in place ensuring that the Statute does not remain on paper and is actually implemented in the world of reality."
I put to you that what I have placed above as argument for my case proves that tolerance in society is a politically social engineering tool, thereby taking away an individuals freedom of moral choice. It would also render the media impotent to report on such things as Religious Issues and issues concerning groups who work towards their own nefarious ends.
Society cannot be tolerant if the right of an individual by democratically afforded freedom is taken away. Tolerance is a moral issue, not a political or religious one.
21st Century society, is becoming more intolerant. Whether this is due to the high degree of political and Religious interference or a collapse of moral values is an issue that must be asked and addressed.
lauren1001

Con

lauren1001 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Gaznew01

Pro

A healthy democracy requires a decent society; it requires that we are honorable, generous, tolerant and respectful.

Charles W. Pickering

Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com...
In the end analysis can we truly say that we are truly tolerant, a healthy democracy.
lauren1001

Con

lauren1001 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Pfalcon1318 3 years ago
Pfalcon1318
Okay, 2sense. You really need to stop and think about what you are saying. If we are really choosing to not tolerate intolerance, shouldn't we choose not to tolerate ALL intolerance? And for that matter, who is the secondary party in your mind here deserving of intolerance in response to their intolerance? You tried this on my debate, and you never made it explicit who you were referring to. "We shouldn't tolerate intolerance." Forgetting the fact that we are trying to punish people for their beliefs, who the heck are you even talking about? Name specific groups.

And, since you are talking about rights, NO HUMAN HAS THE RIGHT TO TELL OTHERS WHAT THEY SHOULD THINK. People need to stop creating rights. You only have the right to life, liberty, and property. Period. If someone hates you, and would rather you be dead, that is their belief. If they do not act upon you life, liberty, or property, you really don't have anything to say. If this dislike is due to you gender (Male or Female), race, or sexuality, then so be it. Unless they have chosen to aggress against your life, liberty, or property, you really have nothing to say.
Posted by 2Sense 3 years ago
2Sense
Ah, once again the "intolerating intolerance is intolerant" argument rears its head. From my perspective, I don't see why such weight is put into this defense.

Essentially what you're implying is that people need to tolerate intolerance. Why? Why should intolerance be tolerated? I agree that individuals have the right to their personal opinions, but when those opinions are rendered to the effect that the liberties of others are infringed upon, that's when it stops. No human has the right to oppress another human. No human has the right to actively intolerate the existence of another human.

If we want to define the upheaval of discriminatory behavior and civilly incorrect treatment of fellow humans as "intolerance", then let that be the only form of intolerance allowed.
Posted by Geogeer 3 years ago
Geogeer
Excellent debate topic, but I'm in agreement with you...
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Youth 3 years ago
Youth
Gaznew01lauren1001Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for forfeit and arguments for arguments...
Vote Placed by Geogeer 3 years ago
Geogeer
Gaznew01lauren1001Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeits, points Pro.