I'm trying to understand how people on this forum have trouble distinguishing between the following:

Open-Minded: Receptive to arguments or ideas.

Tolerance: Sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own or the act of allowing something : toleration.

Acceptance: to qualify or state of being accepted or acceptable.

So, one is Open-Minded if they hear/read your opinion/argument/idea, they are not being Close-Minded if after hearing/reading your opinion/argument/idea they do not agree with you.

One is Tolerant if one doesn't take up arms against, or protest the equality of your beliefs. If someone thinks your religious notions are stupid, but doesn't take action to have your denomination listed as a cult and not a religion, if they do not take up arms against your coven/temple/church/etc., they are being tolerant.

I accept evolution as a fact, though my acceptance of it has no bearing on it's validity.

If the majority of people don't accept a fact, or the majority of people accept a fallacy, that has no bearing on what actually is.

Example: When the GOP gathered together for RNC(Republican National Convention), evolution was still true in Tampa and gays didn't cause hurricanes.

I will not participate in ego stroking or the feeding of fantasy, even if you call it being Open-Minded or Tolerant. Many on here have beliefs which contradict, yet say they are accepting of other beliefs. FALSE, you are being tolerant of them, to be accepting of their differing beliefs would be to forsake your own.

I will not be told that my skepticism is Close-Mindedness. Even when I know someone is wrong from the first sentence, for instance:

"Wicca comes from the ancient Druids."

I read their entire post. I am clearly being open-minded.

I do not advocate the death, incarceration, or unequal treatment of people who hold this clearly wrong belief. I am tolerant of all things but ignorance, which I rectify with a simple correction.

I accept that people are ignorant enough to believe such a fallacy, though I will always tell them when they are in the wrong.

How have you seen people misuse these terms?

Are their anythings you are intolerant of?

Views: 1194

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

from reading your posts I don't view you as being open minded at all.
You seem to simply tell everyone that you think they are wrong and come across as very black and white and always right.
In my opinion, open mindedness is accepting that people think differently to you which doesn't in fact make them 'wrong'...just saying...

Hello!

Let me take a shot at this. Christine you use the word 'seem' and that is not very open minded in itself.  You have drawn a conclusion on  data you can only speculate on.  Sure the OP challenges a lot of statements. Debate and discussion are like that. You take a statement and try to shoot holes in it.  It is a way of understanding the other persons point of view and where they come from. The majority of the discussions he responds to allow for a rebuttal or a come back.  If...the subject is willing...

As for being open minded, its has nothing to do with being accepting. A skeptical discerning mind is still an open mind. Just saying... LOL!

Now hit my music!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DF8cmBV7dRY

"from reading your posts I don't view you as being open minded at all."

The thing is, your views(read:opinions) have no bearing on reality. By the very definition of the term, I am open minded. I didn't just skim or skip your post, I read it.

"You seem to simply tell everyone that you think they are wrong and come across as very black and white and always right."

I have admitted to being bested on this forum many times. I have been put in my place by:

Hells Marie, XOC, Pavlor, SIN (the Classic variant), Rose, Seth, Ravnyfr, Jessima, Houngan Matt

Tea(her and I were once quite combative, even then I respected what she said),Sara, Joseph Andrew Zuchowski, Kitty

There are more, but I'm sick of listing them. I trust these folks judgement more than my own in certain areas.

"In my opinion, open mindedness is accepting that people think differently to you which doesn't in fact make them 'wrong'...just saying..."

That's the thing, you don't get to have your own definition of words. It is not your opinion that "open mindedness is accepting that people think differently to you which doesn't in fact make them 'wrong'"; it's a wrongly held belief on your part that the definition of the word is different from it's actual use.

If someone uses the term consensual sex, in place of rape, that doesn't change the reality of it.

Words have definit(e)ions for a reason, so we can all communicate.


If I consider barnacle to mean hello, soda to mean how, yellow to mean are, and flapjack to mean doing:

Barnacle, soda yellow flapjack.

You would have no clue what the fuck I'm saying.

Basically, you don't get to change the accepted definition of words, using them incorrectly doesn't change anything.

and if we don't have definitions for words, you might as well be speaking gibberish.

There's also context to consider, which makes the American English Language problematic to non-Native speakers.  

There are vocabulary words, and there is language.  Terms can be used in a variety of ways, therefore the definition of it is not definite without both a point of reference and a context.  Vocabulary words are simply a fundamental part of language and communication.

I'm neither open minded nor tolerant, however as I wish to interact occasionally on some level with others I go through the motions.

My proclivities and prejudices remain intact regardless.

I believe what pleases me, the facts be damned. I am ensconced in subjectivity.

Vested in delusion and self vetting what I perceive as reality is how I rationalize the absolute pointlessness of being.

You worship at the alter of science. I acknowledge that it's interesting, but it's no absolute.

Others on this site make claims about being in communication with ethereal beings, successfully preforming magic, charming rocks, twigs, water, fire. They have Gods and Goddesses who interact with them daily over things as mundane as what type of jam to put on their toast, or which sneakers they should wear to the shift at Quiznos this evening.

What the fuck do I care if they are really doing this shit, full of shit, or complete buggered crazy?

I don't. It changes nothing in my life what so ever. Tolerant or open minded.

Bottom line, if it makes them or me happy; what the hell.

What the fuck do I care if they are really doing this shit, full of shit, or complete buggered crazy?

It does to some extent.  If the person who is watching your kids thinks child sacrifice is a good idea to keep the Mayan comets from pelting the earth, do you still think you wouldn't care?  

If you're in divorce court, or any court actually, and the judge and/or jury thinks any religion aside from their own is Satan worshipping, do you still think you wouldn't care?

Straight up, nobody knows what is in the hearts and minds of the people around them.

Even in the extreme examples you've cited, how would anyone sift out the possibility?

I'm not looking for a monster under my bed before I go to sleep, and sure as hell if the monster is at the daycare center they aren't wearing a T-shirt that says 'MONSTER".

I don't spend my day concerning myself with the "What could be" when i've got all day to deal with what is, according to me.

Even in the extreme examples you've cited, how would anyone sift out the possibility?

Appearing in court at some point in your life is not as 'extreme' as you might think.  50% of all marriages end in divorce, chances are you might have a custody issue.  Many people get moving violations and sometimes have to appear in court.

I don't spend my day concerning myself with the "What could be" when i've got all day to deal with what is, according to me.

True, but you do know the world is full of prejudice, right?  So anyone would be prudent to try to lessen any prejudice that might be applied to them, especially if they already know it's present.

"You worship at the alter of science. I acknowledge that it's interesting, but it's no absolute."

I do not worship science, I revel in it, I idolize some of it's greatest minds, but I do not worship it.

I do not place it above art, I do not consider it better than literature.

"Bottom line, if it makes them or me happy; what the hell."

Apathy towards rampant ignorance allows it to continue growing.

"Apathy towards rampant ignorance allows it to continue growing."

Not my problem, and even if it was that's way too big for me to shoulder.

Apathy towards rampant ignorance allows it to continue growing.

I would think it would have the opposite effect, unless of course you meant 'empathy' rather than 'apathy' in this particular sentence.  

I think the IGNORANCE card is handed out too freely personally.  If a person disagrees, it doesn't make them ignorant.  

One could accuse a person of being ignorant, the accusation alone doesn't make them so.

The burden of proof is then on the accuser. 

Our previous discussion about the meaning of Worship can be reduced to language semantics.

If a person observes a pattern of behavior it may lead them to regard it as a form of worship.  Holding Science in such high regard (as Most High) that it narrows your willingness to explore a set of ideas, can be placed in the context of worship.

You may of course disagree, and the dialogue continues.  That's all it is really.  If you are going to be the finger-pointer, you should be able to accept it pointed back at you.

No big deal right?  It's all fun and games until someone gets their feelings hurt.

The bottom line is, many people enjoy their romanticism and favor beliefs over having Science shoved in their faces every moment of the day.

Arguing with a person that experiences apparitions is pointless, for example.

Don't get me wrong, some claims should be disputed especially when they are posited as absolute truths or facts.

Quackery is a good example.  Pseudo-science and hoakie 'alternative' medicine should be challenged, especially if it hurts people.

I wrote an article a few years ago for If...Journal about the dangers of ear-candling.  I heard ALL about it, how I was causing unneeded hysteria.  It didn't somehow make the medical cases of injury (especially to small children) disappear.  At the very least, it just brought more awareness about the dangers and precautions when practicing weird things like ear-candling.

A healthy-level of skepticism would serve us all well.  It still amazes me that people do this to their kids.

RSS

© 2019 PaganSpace.net       Powered by

Badges | Privacy Policy  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service