Not all forms of intolerance are the same.

We have prejudicial intolerance based on rigidity,
closemindedness and antipathy towards a group of
people as well as individuals. We have the disapproval
of group beliefs or practices and we have deliberate
intolerance, which involves interfering with specific
beliefs or practices that are considered to violate
moral principles and values.

As stated earlier - intolerance is not new - but current
events suggest we live in especially intolerant times.
Across many countries people are intolerant of migrants,
refugees, and various minority groups along with
the cultural and religious practices they engage in.

Further more there is intolerance of viewpoint diversity.
Therefore in our increasingly diverse societies there is
every reason to address and oppose intolerance and to
try to promote tolerance - providing of course that
activities do not break the rule of law or do harm to
others.

Of course this is not an easy thing to do but we do at
least have to try if we want to have social cohesion.

Tolerance is the only thing that will enable people
belonging to different religions, having different
viewpoints and values - to live as good neighbours.

Foxy reminds me of Orwell's book 1984-

Foxy seemingly advocates our torture and calls it love-
Foxy seemingly advocates austerity and calls it plenty-
Foxy seemingly goes to war against culture and calls it peace-
Foxy seemingly uses the propaganda of communism to control thought and calls it information.

The four ministries of 1984- Love, Plenty, Peace, Information- similar to Mao's five pillars of the long march through the institutions.
As they say- 1984 wasn't an instruction manual.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_march_through_the_institutions

http://www.conservapedia.com/Long_March_through_the_institutions

Canem Malum,

Why?

It seems to me that, often, calls for tolerance toward other views is an attempt to stop people pointing out that obviously ignorant or uninformed views are ignorant and uninformed views.

An opinion that isn't open to and capable of being challenged isn't worth hearing.

mhaze,

I totally agree with you providing that it's
done in a civil and respectful manner. But
we have to be careful and try to avoid
personal attacks and ones that simply are
untrue and hurtful.

For example when I raised the subject of a
republic Canem Malum accused me of wanting to
kill the British people and plow fields with
their bodies - and worse.

We have to consider our intentions and the harm
that our words cause - especially on a public
forum such as this one when dealing ananymously
with people we really don't know.

Of course there's no perfect way to respond to someone's
rudeness and hurtful comments. Often just walking away is
the best thing to do.

It's one thing in challenging an opinion but
quite another in making it personal and attacking a
person you don't know.