Well it is intolerance when you assume, without prior demonstration, that "equal rights" is universally a value, and therefore you can impose it on other people. Who are you to fight to impose "equal rights" on me? Maybe I don't like this "equal rights". Am I morally wrong if I don't? If you say yes, then you need to mobilise an argument which explains both the origin of this value "equal rights" and its universality. Something that is sorely lacking at the moment. — Agustino

I honestly don't know what the hell you're talking about. It's more rightwing memes. You seem to have a problem with the Constitution and the values of due process and fairness that underly it. Can't help it if you have ugly self-serving values. Get used to the fact that people you want to oppress aren't going to allow you do so without a fight.

Classical, another instance of labeling :) Also another instance of attempting to get a reaction out of me. Curious that those tactics written of long ago by Saul Alinsky have become so well in-grained into left activists. So let me put things straight. What you wrote above is no argument, but an unsupported generalisation backed up by labeling aimed at marginalisation through ridicule and rhetoric. — Agustino

Oh God, I love the reverso-meme. You've just spent I don't know how many posts making bizarre coutnerfactual claims with loaded language against "leftist", and now you alleged I'm labeling you.

Perfect projection.

You even threw in the Alinsky meme - classic rightwing memery.

And still no factual content after all these posts. It's all conservatives can do.

And no, I won't "argue" with your bizarre counterfactual memes. They have no factual content. Rather I will identify them as ugly little narrative - the rightwing meme. It is how the rightwing mind functions.

I did. It's in the post above — Agustino

No, you didn't. You related bizarre rightwing memes with no factual content, and pretended that you were "in danger" from the left That's the poor put upon conservative meme. It has no content. I asked you for an example, and you can't give it. Instead you ranted that students who protest rightwing agendas are a threat to you.

In contrast, the right has armed militias, a vast network of media outlets, a pernicious ideology that calls on killing people, billionaire supporters and minions like Planned Parenthood shooter.

So your posts are typical rightwing reverso-memes - projecting on normal people the reality of the Right's violence and dangerous activities.

It's what conservative do.

I honestly don't know what the hell you're talking about. It's more rightwing memes. You seem to have a problem with the Constitution and the values of due process and fairness that underly it. Can't help it if you have ugly self-serving values. Get used to the fact that people you want to oppress aren't going to allow you do so without a fight. — Landru Guide Us

I don't know where I have said I have a problem with the Constitution of any country... Perhaps you'd be so kind to say where I've talked about the Constitution.

Oh God, I love the reverso-meme. You've just spent I don't know how many posts making bizarre coutnerfactual claims with loaded language against "leftist", and now you alleged I'm labeling you.

Perfect projection.

You even threw in the Alinsky meme - classic rightwing memery.

And still no factual content after all these posts. It's all conservatives can do.

And no, I won't "argue" with your bizarre counterfactual memes. They have no factual content. Rather I will identify them as ugly little narrative - the rightwing meme. It is how the rightwing mind functions. — Landru Guide Us

"Hurr hurr I have no argument, instead I'll point my finger" Really? That's low, I expected more from you. I'm disappointed.

No, you didn't. You related bizarre rightwing memes with no factual content, and pretended that you were "in danger" from the left That's the poor put upon conservative meme. It has no content. I asked you for an example, and you can't give it. Instead you ranted that students who protest rightwing agendas are a threat to you.

In contrast, the right has armed militias, a vast network of media outlets, a pernicious ideology that calls on killing people, billionaire supporters and minions like Planned Parenthood shooter.

So your posts are typical rightwing reverso-memes - projecting on normal people the reality of the Right's violence and dangerous activities.

It's what conservative do. — Landru Guide Us

You've probably repeated in different forms "it's what conservatives can do". If you have any proper, real content, except finger pointing and acting like a baby who just saw his teddy bear go out the window, then please put it up so that we may indeed discuss it like real men and women.

As for not giving examples, I've given quite a few. If you opened that article about hard-line leftist students, you would see that, since Student Unions can and do decide who comes up on a university campus, they have banned or stopped certain speakers -

Students recently campaigned to ban feminist Germaine Greer from speaking at Cardiff University because her views were considered offensive to transgender people.
On Thursday, Oxford students tried to ‘shut down’ a debate involving Miss Greer because of her view that a post-operative transgender female could not be a woman.

Cambridge University took down an internet video of historian David Starkey, who is known for his robustly un-PC views, after student union officials and lecturers accused him of racism

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3338867/Universities-dominated-Left-wing-hate-mobs-Professor-says-free-speech-stifled-challenging-views-shouted-down.html#ixzz3v2YXo5Gs

Now stopping people from speaking is intolerant. Shutting people down from speaking is intolerant. Insulting people for the views they hold is intolerant. At least in the West it is.

What do Cato's words have anything to do with what's being discussed here?

Second, do you think there's anything wrong with asymmetrically polygamous cultures (like Islam) where men are allowed to have multiple wives, while women are allowed only a single husband? Further, do you think there's anything wrong with any culture just because it chooses a different social arrangement, and different gender roles for example?

Cato's words spring from the same source as the words of those who claim that ending the oppression of certain groups (non-heteros, women etc) oppresses them. That is to say, it springs from (fear of losing) privilege. Fear of being unable to oppress. — Πετροκότσυφας

Okay, but you know that oppression is itself cultural. What is oppressive in one culture is merely being just in another. That is the problem. We can't say that one action is oppressive without referencing the culture where it occurs.

If you want to be concrete, yes, I have a problem with Iran hanging homosexuals as long as Iranian homosexuals do not like it. — Πετροκότσυφας

Wait a minute... but what if homosexuality is illegal in Iran, and yet homosexuals still choose to practice it there? If they do this, aren't they breaking the law, and therefore deserve the punishment mandated by law? Afterall, one ought to follow the law even if one doesn't agree with it. Why don't they instead work, build up sufficient money, move to a different country, and then start practicing homosexuality there for example?

Oppression occurs between individuals and groups within the same culture too. It even occurs inside the groups. It furthermore occurs between individuals. And neither do I believe that present cultures are alien to one another. — Πετροκότσυφας

Yes, but what is considered to be oppression depends on one's culture, the country one lives in, and the laws there.

I do not know. I never claimed that law should always be respected. You are the one that should answer your questions here, since earlier you claimed that if people want to fight for their rights they can do it, even by guns. — Πετροκότσυφας

Yes of course they can do it. But there are consequences if they fail, and they need to be aware of those consequences and accept them. A revolution by default is outside of the law. So if you do decide to break the law, and you get caught for it, or fail to execute your revolution, then it's your fault and it is only just that you face the consequences. A homosexual in Iran knows what will happen if they get caught being a homosexual. If they don't want those things to happen to them, why take a chance and perform homosexual behavior in Iran?

Yes challenging them is one thing, meaning one campaigns for changing the law regarding homosexuality. Notice one can still campaign without participating in homosexual behaviour. This way, no law is broken. But participating in homosexual behavior on the other hand is a breach of the law and has to be punished accordingly by the state, until the law is changed.

As for "hegemonic" discourses, they may be contested, but that is a viable practice only in certain cultures (such as the Western culture).

Again, I haven't claimed that the law should never be broken. — Πετροκότσυφας

It's not a question of should or shouldn't. There just are consequences to breaking it, full stop.

Crap. — Πετροκότσυφας

Well - as I look across cultures I don't see that contesting hegemonic discourses is an accepted cultural practice in many parts of the world, and in order to retain my objectivity, I cannot claim that it should be just because in the West it is accepted...

Did I say there aren't? I say there shouldn't be. — Πετροκότσυφας

Why shouldn't there be? That's a cultural-specific assertion.

Obviously, historically, people of various cultures, the "west" included, haven't bought this kind of crap. — Πετροκότσυφας

And other cultures do accept it and function accordingly... I don't see your point. My whole point is that what counts as "hegemonic discourse" is cultural specific. One culture, for example most of the West right now, treats it as hegemonic discourse. Other cultures, such as the West in Cato's time for example, didn't.

Yes it can. Change comes from inside, when an overwhelming number of people agree on a certain change of rules/laws/customs. This has been explained a million times, not only to you, but in much more detail to other posters in this thread (in response to Marchesky if I remember correctly).

You think shoulds are universal and objective, such as your "there shouldn't be consequences to breaking the law". You fail to see that your "shoulds" are culturally mediated, and CANNOT be objective nor universal. To my mind for example, the fact that you think there shouldn't be consequences to breaking the law is an abomination. Does that mean my opinion is universal? Of course not. Neither do I mean to claim it is, it is just my opinion. All "shoulds" are culturally mediated.

In fact, the whole POINT of the law is that even if you don't agree with it, you will respect it. That's why there are punishments to failing to obey the law, in order to pragmatically force you to obey it. So the point of the law is never that 100% of people agree with it. A law remains a law if the power structures in the respective community (which, if the community is a democracy, are the 51% majority) agree to.

Well it is intolerance when you assume, without prior demonstration, that "equal rights" is universally a value, and therefore you can impose it on other people. Who are you to fight to impose "equal rights" on me? Maybe I don't like this "equal rights". Am I morally wrong if I don't? If you say yes, then you need to mobilise an argument which explains both the origin of this value "equal rights" and its universality. Something that is sorely lacking at the moment. — Agustino

Rights are such that membership to a group permits protection against harm by appeal to a right, so long as there is a mechanism to uphold the right. If the group is humanity, then rights protect all members of that group (i.e., human rights). If you want to exclude a person or a demographic from protection by appeal to a human right, it is you that needs the argument as to why some humans are to be excluded. Human rights as equal rights have a pretty solid argument from John Rawls in A Theory of Justice, which argues for equal rights as a rational principle. Do you care to take a stab at refuting Rawls?

Yes, I would say you're morally wrong because inequality can only be sustained by the irrational, paranoid and destructive principle that one deserves more because of the arbitrary circumstance of one's birth.

Rights are such that membership to a group permits protection against harm by appeal to a right, so long as there is a mechanism to uphold the right. If the group is humanity, then rights protect all members of that group (i.e., human rights). If you want to exclude a person or a demographic from protection by appeal to a human right, it is you that needs the argument as to why some humans are to be excluded. Human rights as equal rights have a pretty solid argument from John Rawls in A Theory of Justice, which argues for equal rights as a rational principle. Do you care to take a stab at refuting Rawls? — Soylent

There is no such group as "humanity". If there is, please explain to me its power structures. There is no government governing "humanity", and there is no such thing as "humanity" to be governed in the first place. You're talking as if we all shared the same culture, the same language, the same power structure. We don't. All that exists is different groups of people, under different power structures interacting with each other. The ideal of "humanity" or of a culturally globalised world is just that... an ideal, and not a reality.

So, before I go into the question of refuting Rawls, it is you who must prove that there is a group called humanity. I argue that there is no such group, since it lacks all the features that other groups (such as countries, or families) have: namely power structures, uniform laws, uniform language(s), shared beliefs, shared values, shared practices, shared holidays, shared calendars. And I argue further, namely that our differences are too many for us to ever be one "humanity". Humanity can be talked about by those who are lazy enough to see only superficial similarities, and not the nitty-gritty differences that exist, and can never be eradicated. Where others see identity, I look deeper and see difference. Not only do I see difference, I see value in that difference, and a destruction of that value through the attempt to establish an identity (or equality - same thing).

Yes, I would say you're morally wrong because inequality can only be sustained by the irrational, paranoid and destructive principle that one deserves more because of the arbitrary circumstance of one's birth. — Soylent

It's not a question of deserving or not deserving. It's realising that whether one has more by birth or has less by birth is due to what his community decides to give him/her. And what his community has, is largely dependent on the availability of resources in that region (Nature). The one who has more neither deserves this, nor doesn't deserve this. It is you who is attempting to enforce a morality upon a factual matter of nature. So inequality is sustained by Nature herself, and has nothing to do with man.

Well it is intolerance when you assume, without prior demonstration, that "equal rights" is universally a value, and therefore you can impose it on other people. Who are you to fight to impose "equal rights" on me? Maybe I don't like this "equal rights". Am I morally wrong if I don't? If you say yes, then you need to mobilise an argument which explains both the origin of this value "equal rights" and its universality. Something that is sorely lacking at the moment. — Agustino

Just so we're all talking about the same thing, here is the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Is it really "universal"?
Yes, by definition. The Declaration applies to the entire planet. (It's not called "the South American" or SE Asian Declaration of Human Rights.)

Does everybody agree with it?
Of course not. The declaration has been honored in the breach more often than in the observance.

If everyone doesn't agree with it, how can it be "universal"?
Because it is aspirational rather than contemporaneously descriptive.

What if I, personally, don't want the same human rights that everybody else has? Maybe I'd prefer fewer human rights for myself. Is that OK?
If you were an imbecile, a moron, or an idiot, it might be OK in a sort of imbecilic, moronic, or idiotic way for you to desire fewer human rights than everybody else has. (There is conclusive evidence that you are none of these three.) However, the universal declaration happens to apply to imbeciles as well as highly leftist and right wing philosophers with intelligences that are at least normal, if not above average.

What gives anybody the right to IMPOSE universal human rights on everybody else?
We live in a world where there are many powers counterposed against one another. No nation or group of nations has both the power and the unanimity of purpose to effectively IMPOSE much of Universal Anything on various groups of people.

It sounds like a bunch of autocratic left-wingers foisted this upon the oppressed peoples of the world. Where did this business of "universal human rights" come from?
The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights was cooked up by a cabal of autocratic sort of liberal-to-left-wingers after the end of World War II, which (as you know) featured an unusually lavish display of utter disregard and contempt of even minimal human rights for millions and millions of people. It was an opportune time to issue such a declaration.

Isn't this Universal Declaration of Human Rights just another form of western imperialism being forced down the throats of third world dictatorships?
Some dictatorial, authoritarian, plutocratic, human-rights-abusing regimes have complained about that very thing, as a matter of fact. And they are right. If the United Nations could, they would and should deep throat any number of cannibal regimes with the big dick of Universal Human Rights. As it is, the UN can't pull off such an act of universal beneficence because it is pretty much hog-tied by the major and minor powers who could conceivably be found to fall short of universal human rights themselves. So... bad actors can rest, assured of their impunity for the short run, at least.

There is a difference between "the Regime" and "the People". The Universal Declaration of Human Rights applies to "the people" and not to "the regime". In human terms, no regime can be considered sacrosanct. In real politic, of course, it is the other way around: Regimes tend to be much more sacrosanct than "the people".

So, before I go into the question of refuting Rawls, it is you who must prove that there is a group called humanity. — Agustino

That is a sensible objection. It is precisely the difficulty of making human rights claims, and furthermore, if there is a common group, what rights could possibly come from membership to that group. The geography and political power structures of where an individual lives is arbitrary and cannot inform us about inclusion into the group of humanity. If we want to identify human rights, and maybe you don't quite yet want to identify such rights, we would want to begin by stripping away all the superficial differences between disparate people throughout the world to see if there is anything common that can be the basis for rights. We're not going to have much left, if anything, as the basis for human rights.

What could motivate you to look for human rights? How about self-interest? If you have an interest in yourself, and who doesn't, what right(s) would you need to optimize your ability to get as much of the things that you want? That's the start of human rights.

So inequality is sustained by Nature herself, and has nothing to do with man. — Agustino

Nature doesn't say we live in societies and communities where we respect property rights, We decided in our own self-interest, and to escape the Hobbesian State of Nature, to submit to a magistrate. Inequality in a society is arbitrary, irrational, paranoid and destructive (i.e., unsustainable).

Is it really "universal"?
Yes, by definition. The Declaration applies to the entire planet. (It's not called "the South American" or SE Asian Declaration of Human Rights.) — Bitter Crank

I can write a declaration which says the opposite. What value does this hold? The UN is in no position to guarantee those rights, and therefore cannot claim that they exist.

If everyone doesn't agree with it, how can it be "universal"?
Because it is aspirational rather than contemporaneously descriptive. — Bitter Crank

What's the point of aspiring to something that we know cannot be achieved? To talk about "universal" human rights means to have a body capable of guaranteeing those rights universally. As that is impossible (or if possible, undesirable - because it entails a power structure capable to dominate all of mankind), we cannot talk about them being universal in any real sense of the word.

Isn't this Universal Declaration of Human Rights just another form of western imperialism being forced down the throats of third world dictatorships?
Some dictatorial, authoritarian, plutocratic, human-rights-abusing regimes have complained about that very thing, as a matter of fact. And they are right. If the United Nations could, they would and should deep throat any number of cannibal regimes with the big dick of Universal Human Rights. As it is, the UN can't pull off such an act of universal beneficence because it is pretty much hog-tied by the major and minor powers who could conceivably be found to fall short of universal human rights themselves. So... bad actors can rest, assured of their impunity for the short run, at least. — Bitter Crank

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is toilet paper so long as the UN cannot guarantee them. If the UN can guarantee them, then they risk becoming a global dictatorship. Either way - doesn't look favorable to me.

What could motivate you to look for human rights? How about self-interest? If you have an interest in yourself, and who doesn't, what right(s) would you need to optimize your ability to get as much of the things that you want? That's the start of human rights. — Soylent

I wouldn't call them human rights, I'd call them the rights that a particular state grants its citizens. Again, the justification for calling those rights "human" assumes that there exists a power structure capable of guaranteeing those rights to all humans. As no such structure exists, or can indeed exist (our differences are too many; + it's too dangerous since it would be too powerful), we are left solely with rights granted to us by our nation. And yes, each nation should choose to grant the rights to its citizens which fits the requirements of the time best. As for what rights I want - that is a question that presupposes that I am a member of a certain society. However, being a member of a certain society always-already implies that I have some rights granted. Hence, what rights I want whenever I make a judgement on this is necessarily and inescapably dependent on the rights I have already been granted by my society, as well as by the person my society has made me become. Do not forget - people are to a large degree the products of their societies. The self is the product of the community.

Nature doesn't say we live in societies and communities where we respect property rights, We decided in our own self-interest, and to escape the Hobbesian State of Nature, to submit to a magistrate. Inequality in a society is arbitrary, irrational, paranoid and destructive (i.e., unsustainable). — Soylent

Indeed, and I encourage that. I just don't like this idea of a "global community". It makes no sense to me. A world formed of a multitude of DIFFERENT countries, with different customs and ways of life makes more sense to me.

I wouldn't call them human rights, I'd call them the rights that a particular state grants its citizens. Again, the justification for calling those rights "human" assumes that there exists a power structure capable of guaranteeing those rights to all humans. As no such structure exists, or can indeed exist (our differences are too many; + it's too dangerous since it would be too powerful), we are left solely with rights granted to us by our nation. — Agustino

Yes, rights require a mechanism to uphold said rights, which becomes particularly troublesome for stateless individuals. The mechanism doesn't have to be a global authority, but can come from within individual nations that recognize the rational basis of human rights as the advancement of the nation's own self-interest. This allows a criticism of other nations for the lack of human rights protection on the basis that the nation's policies are inconsistent with the nation's own self-interest (if you can properly identify the nation's self-interest, which is minimally assumed to be sustainability). The nation can continue to shrug off such a criticism, but pressure to adopt mechanisms to uphold human rights is consistent with tolerance insofar as the pressure is not itself a violation of a human right. Allowing a sovereign nation to treat the nation's own citizens in a way that is judged to violate human rights is a balancing act. You want them to be independent and free to make their own choices, but at the same time the outcome is foreseeable and compassion for fellow humans (philanthropy) wants to minimize the suffering of bad policy by those nations.

As for what rights I want - that is a question that presupposes that I am a member of a certain society. — Agustino

Not what rights you want, what rights would you need, minimally, to pursue your interests, even the most basic interests of food, shelter and security. People will have different wants as a product of the culture or society to which they belong, but the rights they need are not so (at all) culture dependent.

The way I see it, the left takes certain values, such as equality for all, freedom against culture/norms, etc. and then imposes these over the rest of the world, and anyone who doesn't respect them becomes a misogynist, racist, sexist, etc. — Agustino

Yes, and they are often right to do so.

towards anything else, absolutely intolerant — Agustino

I'm intolerant of intolerance and offended by offense taking. No idea is above scrutiny and no person beneath dignity.

Who am I to condemn, for example the Islamic way of life and go tell them that their women should have a choice to wear the burkha etc etc? — Agustino

You are someone who is free to choose either to condemn or not to condemn an "Islamic" way of life. Therefore, you implicitly reject, by exercising your right to speak freely, those particular Islamic ways of life that would prohibit you from doing so.

It's their fundamental right to decide what rules are to be obeyed on their lands, and what rules are not. — Agustino

No it's not. First of all, it's not "their" lands. The notion of property only has meaning with respect to the fruits of human labor. All borders, boundaries, etc are utterly contrived. Second, the belief that they have a "fundamental right" to certain pieces of land and the enforcement of certain laws is the wellspring of nationalism, racism, and sectarianism of all kinds. The only way to ensure peace is a thorough going cosmopolitanism, of the kind Socrates advocated: "I am not an Athenian or a Greek, but a citizen of the world."

true toleration means not interfering with these. — Agustino

BS. I will not tolerate men in Afghanistan throwing battery acid on the faces of young girls simply because they held hands with the wrong person at the wrong time of day. I will not tolerate IS throwing gay people off of buildings. I will not tolerate genital mutilation of any kind. The list can go on and on. Tell, me, Augustino, do you tolerate these things? How can you, based on your criteria for "true" tolerance, which these examples all meet? Ergo, your position results in an indirect apology for the most contemptible practices imaginable.

In fact, the world is beautiful precisely because there is diversity and there are many different customs, religions, and cultures. — Agustino

True, but some of them are so barbaric that they need to be eradicated. Hiding behind contrived shibboleths is just an excuse for moral cowardice.

All that is required, I think, are a set of international values, along the following lines: "My land, my rules. Your land, your rules. I will not interfere with you unless you do something that is threatening or damaging to me" — Agustino

Then you will appease and tolerate the grossest violations of justice, decency, and morality conceivable. Cower behind such a base and egotistical cultural relativism all you like, but I for one will take a stand against the enemies of civilization. You are, once again, protected to say what you like because far braver people than me have taken just such a stand.

As an addendum, I have no particular interest in left/right politics, as I find most political labels meaningless, but also sometimes quite dangerous, for they engender lazy thinking, complacency, and radical adherence to party lines and ideologies. I think for myself and decide my views on a case by case basis.

This allows a criticism of other nations for the lack of human rights protection on the basis that the nation's policies are inconsistent with the nation's own self-interest (if you can properly identify the nation's self-interest, which is minimally assumed to be sustainability). — Soylent

This is problematic. A nation's self-interest may not be sustainability at all costs - in other words, a nation may have certain desires regarding the form it wants to exist in which are more important than mere survival. For example, I can imagine an Islamic state having as prime goal the flourishing of an Islamic culture - this can mean a culture which upholds Islamic values and a measure they may want to implement is laws against homosexuality for example. So I suggest instead of disallowing them to do this, which can never be justified because no values are universal - other nations choose to help them in the following way: "We'll take your homosexuals and make them our citizens, and instead we want X reduction in tariffs on Y good". In this way, trade is helped, and both nations fulfill their values, instead of one nation imposing its values on the other.

Not what rights you want, what rights would you need, minimally, to pursue your interests, even the most basic interests of food, shelter and security. People will have different wants as a product of the culture or society to which they belong, but the rights they need are not so (at all) culture dependent. — Soylent

This doesn't follow because of the same reasons. If I'm born in ancient Sparta I need different rights to flourish than I do if I am born in modern day Norway. While in modern Norway I may thrive by being given rights such as "free speech", "equal treatment in work", etc., in ancient Sparta I would thrive if I'm given rights such as "free access to military training". If I'm born in the Arab Emirates, I don't need to even pursue my interests such as "food, shelter and security" because the state already guarantees them to me, hence I need different rights in order to flourish there. My interests and the rights that I need to fulfil them change depending on where I am born.

No idea is above scrutiny and no person beneath dignity. — Thorongil

Agreed.

You are someone who is free to choose either to condemn or not to condemn an "Islamic" way of life. Therefore, you implicitly reject, by exercising your right to speak freely, those particular Islamic ways of life that would prohibit you from doing so. — Thorongil

It doesn't follow that because I personally disagree with them, others must also disagree.

Socrates advocated: "I am not an Athenian or a Greek, but a citizen of the world." — Thorongil

But let us remember that Socrates deemed it morally despicable if he were to run away from the court which had unfairly sentenced him to death. He argued that since he had accepted those laws from the very beginning, and had been greatly helped by being a citizen, and he never departed to a different region of the world, he had an obligation to follow the law even when he disagreed with it :) Instead, we have people in this thread who argue that homosexuals in Iran SHOULDN'T respect the law of their countries...

Tell, me, Augustino, do you tolerate these things? — Thorongil

No, hence I do everything in my power so that they don't happen on my lands and in my country.

How can you, based on your criteria for "true" tolerance, which these examples all meet? — Thorongil

I have yet to see a society founded upon the morally reprehensible survive and thrive. Those things can and do happen - but they are generally brought to an end by the community in which they happen sooner or later. I believe that communities, having the freedom to govern themselves, necessarily make mistakes and learn from them, just like we have made mistakes and learned from them.

True, but some of them are so barbaric that they need to be eradicated. Hiding behind contrived shibboleths is just an excuse for moral cowardice. — Thorongil

I don't disagree. Keep in mind that I am all for bombing Syria, and annihilating ISIS. Why? Because ISIS poses a threat to the sovereignty and national security of other countries, and therefore other countries have to react by destroying them.

My interests and the rights that I need to fulfil them change depending on where I am born. — Agustino

Your interests change, but the minimal right(s) needed to pursue those interests are fundamental (i.e., the right to pursue interests so long as those interests are not harmful to the interests of others). This is where left and right ideologies collide (i.e., identifying interests that are harmful to the interests of others). For example, the unrestricted right to private property permits the excessive pursuit of capital such that few have nearly all the resources while most have little to nothing. The respective tolerance or intolerance of the political spectrum is cashed out in terms of whose interests are being upheld (i.e., personal freedom vs. inequality) but is flexible and in flux within the respective groups to the degree that each side picks and chooses how they fall on specific issues and not a general principle (e.g., dominant abortion views in political groups/parties) and each group accuses the other as intolerant.

Maybe so, I see nothing much to disagree with there, ALTHOUGH, your case isn't philosophically air-tight. I could, if I wanted to, disagree and say that "the right to pursue interests so long as those interests are in agreement with state interests" ; it would apply to both Western states (where state interest is freedom for the individual to choose his pursuits), and Islamic states like Iran, where the state interest is the creation of a flourishing Islamic culture.

Naivety gets the better of us when we think our interests aren't in agreement with state interest, lest we become an enemy of the state and choose to fall in line or perish. We always have the right to pursue our own self-interest as stateless individuals (refugees), but such a decision, barring a benevolent intervening state, should practically be conformity or death (or at least a brutal and short life).

What could I disagree with there?

Cato's words spring from the same source as the words of those who claim that ending the oppression of certain groups (non-heteros, women etc) oppresses them. That is to say, it springs from (fear of losing) privilege. Fear of being unable to oppress.

Islam is not a homogeneous "culture". Cultures are not homogeneous either. Practices and customs within cultures are always contested. I have no problem to answer your ahistoric question: No, in principle I do not have a problem with any culture because it chooses a different social arrangement. Although, I find this ahistoric question vacuous and, therefore, any answer to it is vacuous as well. If you want to be concrete, yes, I have a problem with Iran hanging homosexuals as long as Iranian homosexuals do not like it. — Πετροκότσυφας

Good point. Ahistoricity is another motif of conservative memes. The idea is that history started yesterday.

So conservatives argue we should get rid of regulations that protect the environment because the environment isn't threatened - because of the regulations.

It also is a convenient excuse for dog whispering. For instance conservative will call Obama a monkey and pretend that there is no racist history involving that iconography, whining stuff like "but leftists called Bush a chimp." All in all there is a profound dishonesty to the little narratives the right propagates in lieu of real arguments.

As if the above was anything but a blatant counterfactual ... We can go on pointing fingers like this all day long, but it's not gonna solve anything...

As for not giving examples, I've given quite a few. If you opened that article about hard-line leftist students, you would see that, since Student Unions can and do decide who comes up on a university campus, they have banned or stopped certain speakers - — Agustino

So the ridiculous idea -- the meme being propagated by most of the rightwing noise machine right now -- is that students who protest unfair selection of speakers who attacks minorities, the poor, women as part of their rightwing agenda -- are "dangerous" to free speech by expressing their right to free speech by protesting.

What's wonderful about rightwing memes is that since they have no real factual content, they get more and more convoluted. You're like a tea partier who calls Obama a Muslim, Fascist, Marxist, Wall-Street Insider. The factual incoherency of your claims never occur to you because they aren't factual at all -- just ugly little narratives.

As if the above was anything but a blatant counterfactual ... We can go on pointing fingers like this all day long, but it's not gonna solve anything... — Agustino

I love it when conservatives, flummoxed by having their memes exposed, have to start quoting me and my vocabulary.

Of course the history of campuses being used by the right (and the current attempt of corporations to stifle real free speech on campuses) is something you want to distract from by claiming a handful of freedom loving students are the real problem

Ahistoricity? You're soaking in it!

So the ridiculous idea -- the meme being propagated by most of the rightwing noise machine right now -- is that students who protest unfair selection of speakers who attacks minorities, the poor, women as part of their rightwing agenda -- are "dangerous" to free speech by expressing their right to free speech by protesting. — Landru Guide Us

No, if it was just protesting. But they want to BAN such speakers. Also they insult them. It;s not just that they disagree with them, and proceed to put some arguments forward.

Of course the history of campuses being used by the right (and the current attempt of corporations to stifle real free speech on campuses) is something you want to distract from by claiming a handful of freedom loving students are the real problem — Landru Guide Us

Look mate... they can love freedom all they want to. But to insult people for not believing like them, to want to BAN others from speaking out their ideas... is that tolerant to you?