Tolerate
1 to allow (something one does not agree with) to be practised or done freely without opposition; permit
2 to suffer (someone or something) without complaining: I can't tolerate your bad manners any longer
That's what I find in the Longman dictionary.
The word tolerance is used for opinions that you don't like, as well as for pain. So it is indeed suffering.
I don't like the word tolerate. It is condescending and patronizing to me.
The 'or not?' in dutch. ('of niet?', 'niet dan?')
It depends on how it is intonated. It can mean, don't you dare to disagree. It also can mean your asking for back-up. The latter can be in a pittyful way to. Of course it can have interpretations between those two. But it is not expressing an open attitude towards the opinion of the other. It can be just as condescending as the word tolerance.
Is it just me, or do those KKK robes look really, really silly to anyone else? I mean... guys in dresses?
There are guys that really look very nice, manly, and sexy in dresses.
It is the heads and hoods on the photo that spoil it I suppose. (and what is in the heads of course)
The 'or not?' in dutch. ('of niet?', 'niet dan?')
It depends on how it is intonated. It can mean, don't you dare to disagree. It also can mean your asking for back-up. The latter can be in a pittyful way to. Of course it can have interpretations between those two. But it is not expressing an open attitude towards the opinion of the other. It can be just as condescending as the word tolerance.
Maybe it's the same for all languages. I honestly don't know. I'm a typical Aspie when it involved inter-human relations, so I don't have a particularly strong affinity with certain aspects of social behavior. Dr Spock, remember?!
I never imply any negative conotation when I say it like that, really.
It is a popular stockphrase for some people. And the 'niet dan?' even more. But stockphrases can have negative conotations. So now you do know it, maybe you can stop using it. If you do not intend anything with it you could just as well leave it, it has only been a unnecessary empty addition to your phrases then for you, and a negative addition for some of your readers and listeners.
Illusion, go back to your earlier post, you did type the word inferior, and something about social classes -- were they your words? or were you desribing some background or what? (normally ending in or what, would be rude also).
I was describing the situation of (male) homosexuals in Viking era, where they were tolerated but also had a lower social status. This, because manliness was considered an important trait for males and homosexuals (at least those who take the female role in a homosexual relationship and those who behaved very feminine) were regarded as less manly. Somewhere I stated that I wouldn't mind that the viking approach to homosexuality was incorperated in modern life because it was both tolerant towards them while also focussing on the importance of the family, procreation and gender roles. It is in line with both personal freedom and tradition.
Homosexuals : they are a deviant way of life and their way of life should be recognised as such. They should not, however, be forced to live a heterosexual way of life. During the viking age homosexuals were tolerated but just had a lower social status than heterosexuals. I'd say this would be a reasonable approach. Heterosexuality as a norm is vital because reproduction and a family unit are essential for the future of the species.
I took the liberty of quoting both paragraphs. Seems you are mixing things up a bit. You are describing the viking way as a possible social structure that would benefit gay people too; they'd be accepted. But the costs in the viking era were a lower social status. To you, probably not a homosexual, that would be a reasonable approach.
And then it seems that the fundament for the reasonabillity is that heterosexuality as norm is vital because of reproduction.
There you use norm to show how things should be. You seem to think it needs a kind of propaganda. But it is the other way around as a neutral statistic terminology maybe you could use 'normal' for heterosexuality, because the average human being seems to be heterosexual. I would not advice using 'normal' for heterosexuality though, because it has those directive connotations. (as in the way you use norm in the quoted paragraph)
There is no need at all to be afraid of homosexuality. The world won't become empty of children because of that. Procreation will go on, mostly in heterosexual relations, not because that is the best way (norm) but because most people are heterosexual.
There is one positive thing in the quote, you don't want to force homosexuals to live a heterosexual life.
I hope I am making myself clear here. Callista would do it better I thinks.
And I have to say I'm curious what do you think of gender roles. With your focus on procreation I am fearing 'barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen' as a suitable role for women...
Illuison, Alot of folks on here are very specific with wording and heck I even read what you wrote back, way early in this thread and thought, man if illusion does not clarify quickly, specifically, clearly, it seemed even to me you were being worse than just a separatist.
Isn't an insufficient ability to clarify to others what you actually mean quite a common Aspie-trait? If so, then shouldn't it be more accepted on a forum like this?
Misinterpretation can occur on AFF. But just because we experience miscommunication so often in daily life we do try to be as clear as possible on AFF. Because we know it can be difficult for all of us we do not hesitate to ask further and preciser what you mean by what you write.
Equal value and difference. OK
It is words like primitive and superior that are problematic. I know 'primitive' is used as 'neutral' terminology to describe all kinds of evoluations. But it has a devaluating sound. In the word 'superior' this devaluating sound is very clear.
The dog as different with equal value. In some things you can do better than the dog. You might say in that case you are superior. In other things your dogs do better than you. In that case the dog could be considered superior to you.
Context does make a huge difference.
I got lost in the threads.
So I'm copying post 119 of the pagan thread here.
Post: #119RE: Paganism is great
Third, unlike people like ocampo or Maxbear I don't make my judgements based on prejudice but on rational thought. I don't just make assumptions on how people think and why, but I just look at the plain, cold, dead facts. That's what makes me fit into the Dr Spock stereotype. All these emotions over rational opinions is something that just puzzles me.
I think your logic isn't that flawless. You do not use your words that careful and you don't mind being not careful with your words. When you are not careful with the words you use, you will not be able to present your 'logic' in a convincing way. Not for us and not for yourself. Using 'normal' f.i. both as statistic terminology and as a qualifying terminology is making your logic opaque.
You also do not see a difference between predjudice and experience/feeling. The fact that you seem not to have feelings does not make you superior to those who have. And those who have feelings can't be told that they should not react on their feelings in a discussion with you. Those feelings are real, and in most cases the feelings expressed here are backed up by experience. So even if you do not understand them you must take feelings serious as a fact, even if it is as a fact you do not understand.
Facts about race, sexual preference, gender etc there are no dead cold facts. All the facts you can find are attached to strong feelings. Trying to debate them in a cold detached professional way is an illusion. Even demographic facts are not cold dead facts. The sentiments of the researcher shine through.
Dr. Spock, other Vulcans and Data did respect feelings. Even if they did not understand them, or just because they did not understand them.
And Dr. Spock was a best-selling expert on child care and an anti-war activist.
Mr. Spock was a character on Star Trek.
Oops Max
I stand corrected.
(My defense that I did not see the oldest serie that much is meaningless)
I'm stuck for words.
I want to express that there is no such thing as science or research that is without the values and beliefs of the researcher. AAAhh sometimes I wish I was raised in english. But then I would miss my dutch part of the brain. And that is offering different views, just because it is in another language.
There is no way, not even for an aspie, that you can do 'clean', 'pure', research. Even when you decide what your question is you show part of your own p.o.v. When you express your thoughts you express part of your own p.o.v.
The more you state that the facts you come up with are not 'tainted' by emotions/feelings/predjudices/p.o.v.s the more I tend not to trust the result as just plain facts.
The clinical study of human inferiority has long been a shameful, yet laughable, cottage industry for supremacists who try to disguise their bigotry through peudo-rational propaganda. Its goals are transparent and despicable and persuasive only to those who seek to justify their existing prejudices.
Stripped of the fluffy dressings of dogmatic puffery, it's always the same: women are inferior, darker races are inferior, the people across the border are inferior, the neurologically different are inferior, homosexuals are inferior, the poor are inferior.
Choose your supremacist ideology. they're all esentially the same and they will always attract people of a certain type.
Look back at Illusion's first post. He has trolled from site to site, always reviled for his crackpot supremacist philosophies. He is outraged that his silly protestations, "but I am respectful to my inferiors, granted that they are my inferiors" don't make his supremacist nonsense acceptable.
I'm not the one continuously offending others. Again : if you take my words as offensive, then that's probably because you just can't handle the truth.
Just because you cannot see that you are offending others-doesn't mean that you are not. You are being offensive-that's the truth. Can you handle it?
When someone is deliberately being offensive to the people here-that is worth fighting for.
So you're implying that NTs are of little spine? *whistles and reports*
People should learn to take criticism instead of crying like a little child who just found out that Santa isn't real.
Nevertheless,
cowardness, narrowmindedness and arrogance
You folks have all made that pretty clear to me.
Happy to help you see yourself so clearly.
When someone is deliberately being offensive to the people here-that is worth fighting for.
Sorry my post didn't relate specifically to anything currently going on...it was...ah what's the point...
You're right of course...carry on.
Ah, My post was sort of vague maybe- and I should have put someone's name in it-
-not yours though 
I do get what you mean, QD...
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
