Michael is a biology graduate of the UMaine system. He likes to spend his free time hiking and defending science, though not usually at the same time. Contrary to popular (but not scientific) belief, the positive and appropriate perception of science is undermined by religion, alternative medicine, the U.S. education system, and most science journalists.
They’re not, and I can’t take anyone seriously who demonstrates they don’t know the difference.
I was in a dicsussion with someone yesterday (I can reveal more details privately, if you’d like) who said that it was the intention of someone which decided whether or not an action was intolerant. For example, if I make it a point to rid a person of a particular idea – to fully change their mind – then I am being intolerant of whatever idea it is they have in the first place. To me that says that most arguments/debates are acts of intolerance since the point of them is to change minds. The response I got was that that is not the point of most arguments/debates.
I think this persons conclusions outran the situation.
To me, it’s like having a gay child. Still loving them and inviting them home for Christmas while believing in your heart that what they’re doing is a sin is tolerance. Thinking of their sexual orientation as a morally-neutral trait is acceptance.
He would respond (I think) that if the parent conveyed to the child that being gay is wrong and that he (the child) should not be gay because of X, Y, and Z, then that is intolerance.
I think intolerance has a hard time coming up in a conversation, because they typically will not speak with those they disprove of and are unwilling to tolerate.