Re: Tolerance was Re: Hello !?

From: Van oost Kenneth (
Date: Wed 19 Feb 2003 - 18:42:00 GMT

  • Next message: "Re: Tolerance was Re: Hello !?"

    ----- Original Message ----- From: <> Kenneth,
    > > History prooved us right, no doubt about it, but in the case of Nazism
    > > the enslavement of the German people prooved to be a freedom and
    > > choise- stance_ for the ( most of the) German people at that time !
    > > Don 't get me wrong Joe, I ain 't keen on Stalin and Pol Pot either,
    > > but all positive characteristics of the term tolerance reflects our
    > > point of view not theirs, and I think that this deserves attention.
    > The points of view of the soulless butchers of millions deserve our
    > attention????? I fear that with this contention you have traveled
    > quantums beyond the pale, and I fail to see how you can find your way
    > back to rationality and reason.

    This seems to be somewhat a point of misunderstanding between the two of us, Joe ! In the context of the term, in the semantic of the term itself, tolerance is a passive conception. It demands a meek, passive attitude under which we go the facts. Tolerance is here the opposite of a ' will to change '. The facts we endure, but we do nothing wha could change the status quo.

    In the context of Stalin and Pol Pot we ' tolerate ' their ways by which they lead their country. We are, as individuals and I soley concentrate on those, to little to do anything about the situation_ we can only pressure our own government. If our voices aren t heard..... That is OUR pasitive attitude towards another country its home affairs_ like many now argue in the context of Irak.

    What we don 't tolerate on the other hand is indeed the ways those guys behave(d). Tolerance can thus in certain circumstances be abolished. But whatever the reason ( did we tolerate Stalins and Pol Pot's behavior in those times !?) we didn 't do nothing in the given time to get rid of those killers, did we !? No we made ' peace ' with the first ( self- interest no doubt) and the second was finally defeated after a long, long war ( but was he killed, no lived on...) Were we involved in that battle !?

    The attention I talk about is that we ought to look at whatever the reason was for those butchers their behavior to comprehend what happened and to avoid repetition. Whatever their reason was_ a rational ( in their mind) was present
    ( whatever that could be), if we think that we have something to say, something to add, we're in the ' wrong ' ! Don 't get ME wrong, but IMO, we look at the problematic with our own eyes, the eyes of the beholder and we look in only one direction_ OURS ! This is a rhetoric movement we make by which we automatically condems the ' victim '. Don 't say we shouldn 't and should, though !

    Is this clearer !? I have it here soley about the used terminology, not what its holds within....

    Many regards though,


    =============================================================== This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing) see:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed 19 Feb 2003 - 18:23:41 GMT