If one is intolerant of intolerance then one is just as intolerant as those that are claimed to be intolerant from which one should not tolerate oneself.
Not wishing to associate with someone is not indicative of being intolerant of them, though assuming they are not intelligent may be.
To make sure we are not arguing over words, Googling “tolerate” returns two definitions.
“1. Allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference.
Accept or endure (someone or something unpleasant or disliked) with forbearance.”
I am using the second, not the first. I don’t see the point of dealing with someone who is explicitly intolerant of a group of people based on no conscious choice of their own, and should have examined their own beliefs, without a very significant reason to do so. This is because they are less likely to have interesting thoughts or experiences, and furthermore I would not feel comfortable dealing with them in many social settings.
Let’s stop talking about race since it may or may not be relevant and deal directly with IQ.
I don’t see the point of dealing with someone who is explicitly intolerant of a group of people based on no conscious choice of their own,
Someone’s IQ is certainly not based on any conscious choice of their own. So your argument seems to imply that we should not be intolerant of people with low IQs.
This is because they are less likely to have interesting thoughts or experiences, and furthermore I would not feel comfortable dealing with them in many social settings.
On the other hand this argument works even better as an argument for avoiding interacting with, i.e., being intolerant of, people with low IQs.
So which is it, should we be intolerant of people with low IQs, or should we be intolerant of people who are intolerant of people with low IQs? Your argument seems to imply both.
I have not abandoned this. I am simply trying to rework my moral system such that it allows me to both choose whom I want to spend time with in a useful fashion while not being hypocritical in the process. I will get back to you with my results.
If one is intolerant of intolerance then one is just as intolerant as those that are claimed to be intolerant from which one should not tolerate oneself.
Not wishing to associate with someone is not indicative of being intolerant of them, though assuming they are not intelligent may be.
To make sure we are not arguing over words, Googling “tolerate” returns two definitions. “1. Allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference.
Accept or endure (someone or something unpleasant or disliked) with forbearance.”
I am using the second, not the first. I don’t see the point of dealing with someone who is explicitly intolerant of a group of people based on no conscious choice of their own, and should have examined their own beliefs, without a very significant reason to do so. This is because they are less likely to have interesting thoughts or experiences, and furthermore I would not feel comfortable dealing with them in many social settings.
Let’s stop talking about race since it may or may not be relevant and deal directly with IQ.
Someone’s IQ is certainly not based on any conscious choice of their own. So your argument seems to imply that we should not be intolerant of people with low IQs.
On the other hand this argument works even better as an argument for avoiding interacting with, i.e., being intolerant of, people with low IQs.
So which is it, should we be intolerant of people with low IQs, or should we be intolerant of people who are intolerant of people with low IQs? Your argument seems to imply both.
I have not abandoned this. I am simply trying to rework my moral system such that it allows me to both choose whom I want to spend time with in a useful fashion while not being hypocritical in the process. I will get back to you with my results.