Is intolerance a human characteristic?

[guillaumeb]

Of course it is. It is part of being human.


Has there ever been a society free from intolerance?

No, for the same reason as stated above.

So when we speak of intolerance, we are speaking of human behavior. Why then, would anyone expect to find a group of humans free from intolerance?

[TreasonousBastard]

1. Yes, it is. But not really one of our better ones.

[guillaumeb]

3. Agreed.

But it seems impossible to eliminate.

[Snackshack]

81. The root of...

Intolerance is Fear so it is impossible to eliminate.

[guillaumeb]

82. Well said.

It is a survival mechanism.

[marylandblue]

2. Is this thread about intolerance of theists or atheists?

I just want to be sure, since it mentions neither, yet I saw a similar question in response to another OP that mentioned neither, and it turned out that that thread was about intolerance of theists.

[guillaumeb]

4. It is dealing with both groups.

Considering that both groups, at least on this planet, are composed of humans.

[marylandblue]

6. Now I am really confused.

Is this the anthropology group? Because that would be the right group to study humans being humans.

[guillaumeb]

7. Humans are not "just" humans.

And any study of human behavior must acknowledge that humans behave as humans no matter their labels.

[marylandblue]

15. I don't believe I have ever read any study or book on human behavior

regarding human behavior that actually contained that particular tautology. In fact I rarely see anyone insist that we must acknowledge tautologies at all. Except in this particular corner of the internet, where it is exceedingly common.

Can you explain why you believe we must acknowledge tautologies here when entire textbooks of human psychology don't mention them at all?

[guillaumeb]

17. I mentioned it because some here appear to be shocked

that theists actually behave as do all other humans. As do atheists, for that matter.

[marylandblue]

19. I doubt they are shocked, they seem more frustrated.

Their opinion seems to be that there is something about religion that may, at times, cause more intolerance than there otherwise might be. But we don't seem to talk about that as much as we talk about anthropological tautologies, even though this is the religion group, not the tautology group or anthropology group.

I believe some people find this lack of discussion frustrating. Some may even find it intolerant, which makes it quite tragic, because since we are all human, we are all intolerant. So there is nothing to do about it. Except to repeatedly notice it.

[guillaumeb]

34. The religion group deals with humans.

So a referral to aspects of any science which deals with humans is acceptable.

Should we expect theists to behave better than non-theists? Or the reverse?

[marylandblue]

36. There is no type of science that begins or concludes with "humans act like humans"

Last edited Fri Mar 1, 2019, 10:47 PM - Edit history (1)

So lets just dispense with that whole fiction now. As far as I know, such a science doesn't exist. If you think there is one, please provide a reference to a book or journal article that either explicitly makes that assumption, or performs a study to prove that it is true.

You think some people here are surprised that humans act like humans. I think that is unlikely. I've never met a person surprised by that fact, and I imagine that if you took survey, 100% of participants would agree that humans act like human. I do know a lot people who find tautological arguments either frustrating or boring. I am one of those people, so I assume tautologies should be avoided.

Should we expect theists to act better than non-theists? Good question. Many theists think they do. That has a lot of implications.

Many atheists think theist act worse than other humans. That has a lot of implications too.

But we can never get to any of those implications, if both our starting point and ending point is "humans act like humans." Do you see why this is so, or do I need to explain it to you?

[guillaumeb]

40. Channeling the "group speak" with the ending sarcasm? Really?

My view is that most humans probably feel that they behave better than average.

That does say something about the self-perception of people.

[marylandblue]

41. There is no sarcasm in that post and I have no idea of what you mean by "group speak"

But you do seem unusually non-receptive to the simple idea that "humans act like humans" is not the answer to everything. Why does that seem so strange to you?

[guillaumeb]

42. No?

But we can never get to any of those implications, if both our starting point and ending point is "humans act like humans." Do you see why this is so, or do I need to explain it to you?

[marylandblue]

43. Well you don't seem to get it and you didn't answer the question.

So I don't know what to say now. I just see a big disconnect.

[MineralMan]

53. That was not sarcasm. It was a legitimate question.

A question you did not answer. I will explain it to you. Your argument is a tautology. It ends with the same conclusion it started with as its initial premise.

Apparently, you do not see that as a problem in your argument, despite it being a fatal logic error.

There was no sarcasm. Just a sad, sad question that should not have needed to be asked.

[guillaumeb]

62. Have you ever heard of a concept called a rhetorical question?

I am going to guess that you might have, but in case the concept is unfamiliar:

Rhetorical Question Examples

A rhetorical question is a question someone asks without expecting an answer. The question might not have an answer, or it might have an obvious answer. So, why would you ask a question and not expect an answer? Don't the two go hand in hand?
Well, sometimes these questions are asked to punch up a point. If the answer is glaringly obvious, it will make that answer stand out. Sometimes it's used to persuade someone. Other times, it's used for literary effect.

https://examples.yourdictionary.com/rhetorical-question-examples.html

I hope that this helps.

[marylandblue]

63. Have you ever heard of the condescending Dunning-Kruger miscommunication effect?

Probably not, because I just made it up. But that's when someone asks you a legitimate question, someone else understands the question but you don't, and then you prove you don't understanding by offering a condescending explanation to the person who does understand.

Or maybe you understood everything all along and just don't want to own up to it, because that might actually mean something. I understand.

SMH

[guillaumeb]

65. Reply #53 well illustrates that my answer was needed.

[marylandblue]

66. He understood. You did not. Or you are being disingenuous. Take your pick.

[guillaumeb]

67. His answer clearly indocated otherwise.

Or he would not even have asked.

[marylandblue]

69. He was explaining my post. Or did you think he was talking about something else?

[guillaumeb]

70. I disagree for this reason.

He said:

A question you did not answer. I will explain it to you. Your argument is a tautology. It ends with the same conclusion it started with as its initial premise.

[marylandblue]

72. Yes, that is what I was saying as well. And after going through a long explanation,

I asked if you understood why gets us nowhere, or if I needed to explain that to you. So you ignored the entire explanation and dismissed it as sarcasm, which it wasn't. But you didn't answer the question, you dismissed my post and you dismissed his post and now you are effectively arguing with me about what I meant by my own post. Which is a really weird thing to do.

[Lordquinton]

45. All that and his only takaway

was a bit at the end. Very typical for G-man.

[marylandblue]

52. Well I tried.

[Lordquinton]

56. One reason I gave up on long responces

He doesn't argue in good faith. It's always like what he did here, you make a long and well thought out post and he hyperfixates on one aspect that's not even real.

[guillaumeb]

68. Laughable.

Truly laughable.

The double standard here is blatant.

And that might be why so many theists post a very few times here and then abandon the group.

[marylandblue]

71. I don't think that's why theists don't post here.

I think they don't like that whenever they try to post here, a bunch of atheists say religion is all bullshit. It's not a double standard, but it is a pretty harsh welcome.

[guillaumeb]

73. It is a harsh greeting. Or warning, but certainly not a welcome

in any sense of the word other than ironic.

[Act_of_Reparation]

92. Context and history are important.

Right now, atheists dominate this group, but that wasn't always the case. A number of theists used to post here regularly. They weren't driven away, they were banned. So if atheists seem a little prickly to odd newcomer, that is why.

[Lordquinton]

74. Thanks for supporting my point

My evidence is right here in this post, in this subthread even.

There was a long, thought out post, with questions and interest, and you focused on one minor perceived slight at the end and completely derailed it.

Maybe theists abandon it because they don't want to be associated with people who give them a bad name?

[guillaumeb]

75. reply #71 disagrees with you.

And there are countless examples here proving my point for any who care to research them.

[marylandblue]

93. Don't cite my authority for your opinion, because I have none.

[trotsky]

94. Too late.

You've given him ONE post that he can spin as supporting him, so now it will be endlessly cited as proof that he's right.

[Lordquinton]

95. Post 71 has nothing to do with my point

Stop distracting and reframing.

[bitterross]

5. Of course. It's part of tribalism.

It's part of evolution and protecting the DNA of the family/tribe.

[guillaumeb]

9. I agree.

It is a survival characteristic, and that must be recognized.

Generally, historically, the intolerance has been directed against the other.

[marylandblue]

8. Tolerance is also a human characteristic.

I believe that completely exhausts this subject.

[guillaumeb]

10. I recognize your feeling.

[marylandblue]

16. That wasn't a feeling. I believe in being precise.

[guillaumeb]

18. But you returned.

And when discussing human behavior, why do some act surprised that all humans generally act and react in the same ways?

[marylandblue]

20. See post 19.

[grumpyduck]

11. I suspect it's also a characteristic of the great apes

especially chimps.

[guillaumeb]

12. Agreed.

Perhaps also the other, now extinct, hominids as well.

[procon]

13. Long before anyone ever reaches a state

of being intolerant, it seems like they would first harbor suspicion, superstition, fear, and ignorance.

[guillaumeb]

14. Good points.

All part of dividing people into the tribe and the other.

As a previous poster noted, it is a survival mechanism.

[trotsky]

21. Is this the Religion forum?

Why don't you want people to talk about religion's role in intolerance?

[Act_of_Reparation]

22. O RLY

What gene codes for "intolerance"?

[edhopper]

23. BUT

if there was a loving God who cared about people, one would think that religions based on his teachings would be less intolerant than other groups, or humanity in general.
Religions being equally intolerant is as if there is nothing divine or good behind them at all.

[guillaumeb]

35. But religions are composed of humans.

Imperfect humans.

[MineralMan]

24. Well, the capacity for intolerance is a human characteristic.

Some humans are demonstrably intolerant. Others are not. Still others fall somewhere in the middle of that range of behaviors between tolerance and intolerance. Tolerance varies over time, as well, in both individuals and in human societies.

Is murderousness a human characteristic? A capacity for it is, certainly.

As with most human characteristics, one needs to look at the individual or the group of individuals to see if they exhibit either murderousness or intolerance. And then, there's the problem of determining whether it is the group that causes such behaviors or if the behaviors of individuals influences the group.

A broad brush uses up paint quickly, but cannot create fine details. That's why artists tend to use smaller brushes than barn painters.

[trotsky]

25. And it's not like all intolerance is bad.

We shouldn't tolerate murder, rape, theft, or any other kind of needless aggression.

What the topic of discussion should be is, what kinds of intolerance are bad, and what philosophies encourage those kinds?

And since we're here in the Religion forum, the topic should be what religious ideas encourage intolerance, and how can we fight back against them?

But no, any time the topic is breached, we have an individual launch into whataboutism so that no discussion can occur.

[MineralMan]

26. On that note, I have started a new thread.

It is about words like "tolerance," which are poorly defined in these discussions.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218308981

[Major Nikon]

29. If we refuse to tolerate shitposting, does that make us intolerant?

Followup question: If the answer is yes, is that just part of our human nature?

[marylandblue]

27. The problem in the Religion Group is some people are intolerant of fine art

Every time someone tries to paint a detailed portrait of religion, someone else paints it over with a barn brush.

It turns out that religion is just a bunch of identical red barns. Even worse, there are identical red houses next to the barns, so we can't even find the horses.

[MineralMan]

28. Well, that's ONE problem in the Religion Group, anyway.

If everything is a big red barn, the landscape is pretty boring.

[edhopper]

30. Has religion or God

done anything to counter this intolerance, or does religion and God reinforce it?

That seems a more pertinent question for this group.

[MineralMan]

31. Unfortunately, the Old Testament includes a number of passages

where intolerance of "others" lead to orders from the deity to slay them all, leaving nobody alive. Alternatively, it have orders to slay all those "who pisseth against the wall," and keep the women for themselves.

It's difficult to find passages, particularly in the Old Testament, where tolerance was advocated by the local deity. Of course, that reflected the culture of the nomadic Bronze-age goatherds who invented the stories in the first place.

Intolerance is sort of built into most religions, given that those who do not follow that religion are doomed to extinction and, perhaps, an eternity of punishment.

[edhopper]

32. And even though one could argue Jesus taught tolerance

the Christian Church has been as intolerant as any other institution over the centuries.

So to say religion is intolerant as anything else human, points to religion being JUST human and has nothing to do with any divine presence.

[Mariana]

33. One could argue Jesus taught tolerance.

One could quite reasonably argue the opposite. For example, Jesus clearly instructed his followers to reject their families if they believed differently. That's hardly an example of tolerance. And look how he reacted to the money changers. He was completely intolerant of the practice of exchanging currency for foreigners, and of selling them the animals they needed in order to obey God's commands. He constructed a weapon, attacked the people and the animals, and vandalized the place. No wonder the population turned against him.

[edhopper]

39. True

And of course Christians love to use the Old Testament when they really want to be intolerant.

[marylandblue]

37. I have heard Christians say the same thing

Basically that institutional churches are no better than any other institution, they all screw it up sooner or later. That a Christian practices love and tolerance regardless of what everyone else is doing, or what is done to them. Perhaps needless to say, this sort of Christian can drive institutional churches crazy.

[edhopper]

38. But the logical next question

is why does God allow all this in his/her name?

[marylandblue]

44. "We live in a fallen world" is the usual answer.

[edhopper]

47. And God obviously doesn't care

if good people are harmed by evil done in the name of God.

[marylandblue]

49. They admit there is no theological answer in this life for suffering.

[edhopper]

55. Funny

considering how many theological answers they do have.

[marylandblue]

57. I am talking about a subset of Christians who are more into feelings and good works

than theology.

[edhopper]

58. OK

thanks for clarifying.

[Lordquinton]

46. I'm gonna make a guess

You tried to call out some secular group for intolerance, got told that the people they were being intolerant to was a religious group protecting their right to be intolerant, and you had to come here, reframe and play the victim because any negative thing associated with any religious group is merely human nature.

[guillaumeb]

48. Perhaps you should guess again.

And perhaps yet again.

[Lordquinton]

50. I did some catching up

I was spot on

[Voltaire2]

51. It was yet another oops didn't actually read

the article train wreck.

[Lordquinton]

61. Classic G-man

"Here's another brutal, oppressive, intolerant atheist government"

"Well, what was the point of contention that the church was claiming they were being intolerant about... Oh, the article says gay marriage"

"Well, intolerance is really a human charistic"

[trotsky]

59. Indeed you were.

Though you don't earn that many points, it wasn't a difficult guess.

[Lordquinton]

60. That was like the $100 line on jepardy

[MineralMan]

54. Anything more than one human does can be called a "human characteristic."

That something is a "human characteristic" does not in any way demonstrate that any particular human or group of humans is likely to exhibit that characteristic. The statement is not a generally true statement. Red hair on the head and body is also a "human characteristic." However, only a small percentage of humans exhibit that characteristic.

What did you mean your point to be?

[NeoGreen]

64. How is it not? (nt)

[guillaumeb]

77. My argument is that it is a universal behavior. eom

[NeoGreen]

91. So, you deliberately choose to not ask:...

..."Is intolerance a universal human characteristic?", because...you like ambiguous questions?

[Kurt V.]

76. Intolerance of what? the op is unclear

[guillaumeb]

78. My argument, or assertion,

is simply that intolerance is a universal human behavior unrelated to ideology or other belief systems.

[Kurt V.]

79. all human behavior is contingent on our social environment and our genetic endowment. so i would

disagree. There have been societys down through history that are very tolerant but mostly are not. this has less to do with an inherent trait and more to do with time and place.

[guillaumeb]

80. There can be isolated societies

where the group is small enough that there are no real differences. but in most cases, we have nations, tribes, societies that ci-exist in proximity to other groupings.

My argument is that intolerance for the other is related to tribalism, and serves as a survival mechanism.

[Kurt V.]

84. i understand your argument. how did all the hominids co-exist and cross breed if tribalism was a

major factor in survival? Recently it was found that many hominids across the russian plain did just that. the lesser hominids went extinct simply bc they were lesser.

[guillaumeb]

85. Perhaps they were unable to adapt to changing circumstances?

I am not saying that it cannot be overcome, but that it is a strong instinct.

[Kurt V.]

86. i think leaders of society use this as a tool to gain control. the fear of other is purely a made up

narrative. ppls curiosity of other is consistent through history but the leaders squash it for control. there is nothing instinctual about it. imo.

[guillaumeb]

88. I agree that leaders exploit difference to gain and keep control.

Fear of the other seems to be the foundation of modern GOP philosophy.

[Kurt V.]

87. the history of south carolina right aftet the war of 1812 is a good example

[guillaumeb]

89. Please elaborate.

I confess to not being that familiar with many aspects of US history.

[Kurt V.]

90. google it. Its real interesting how blacks (slaves who fought in that war) and whites lived in

relative harmony until the plantation owners convinced ppl otherwise.

[guillaumeb]

97. Thank you.

So, the plantation owners used race to divide working people?

But, crucially, the white workers were not slaves.

[Lordquinton]

96. The OP is intentionally vague

The context is this thread where he posted an article about the RCC accusing the Cuban government of being intolerant of their religion. Post 17 revealed that the bone of contention was that the intolerance was the declaration of marriage being between two people, instead of a man and a woman.

From there the goalposts were moved so far and so fast that we wound up here.

[c-rational]

83. No man is better than any other man, and no man is less than any otherr man. I do not like

the framing of your question. All are called and few are chosen.. We - all humans - have the ability to rise above ignorance, however few do. Also, I do not believe that most people recognize that original sin is the ego, which gives rise to intolerance, me is better than you.