Sensitivity does (assuming no middle ground) because certain words can be so hurtful and hateful that they are criminal in their spewing forth.

words are only hurtful if you empower them.

All the more reason for tolerance.

But tolerance might have to go beyond the bounds of reason. Should we tolerate mass-murderers, because that's their opinion? No, we shouldn't.

Should we be sensitive to those same people? Yes, we should very sensitively tell them they are clinically insane, and then very sensitively lock them up in a very sensitive hospital.

+1 Rommel

seems that both tolerance and sensitivity are critical for success in our social world... be either completely intolerant or completely insensitive and you'll likely find yourself completely alone and hated and/or in prison.

@rommel: I believe he was referring to tolerance on a personal level, if a person does something that is not against the law, but I find it offensive (say he calls me something bad), am i justified in retaliating in a way thats against the law (beating him up)?

@draugnar: the trouble with justifying unlawful acts based on sensitivity is that its a slippery slope. Who defines what Im allowed to be offended at? Suppose I beat up a person and claim that he was looking at me, and i find that offensive, who has the authority to decide that I am wrong, but the black who reacted to the 'N' word is right?

Manas - yes exactly, I didn't think there was a need to exclude murder. I like your points and questions.

Tolerance should always prevail in instances that aren't meant to offend masses. I say that because I can imagine a crying baby in a theater. It effects everyone's ability to hear the film and thus should not be tolerated...but all words are completely tolerable. It's the pussies that allow themselves to turn those words into anger that are the problem...not the words or the person saying them.

See, I disagree with your last paragraph because it's not internally consistent.

First, "Tolerance should always prevail in instances that aren't meant to offend masses." Okay. But then: "I say that because I can imagine a crying baby in a theater. It effects everyone's ability to hear the film and thus should not be tolerated..." Neither the baby nor the parent took that baby to the theater with the intention of offending people, and the baby is not crying with the intention of offending the people. The parent is not meaning for the baby to be offending everyone. So isn't this a case where you think tolerance is the key? I mean, after all, a baby's cry is its first method of communication, so you can label it a word, and all words are completely tolerable.

"Neither the baby nor the parent took that baby to the theater with the intention of offending people"

Well, I think that taking a baby into a theater goes against common sense in the first place. The baby is interrupting the movie that everyone paid to see.

If I'm speaking in public and not causing anyone harm, I should be free to say what I want and people should tolerate it rather than call the cops because maybe my words are sensitive to them. But I'm not causing anyone to miss anything, they are free to stand and listen or walk away, as I am on a public street and have the same rights as they do.

There certainly are instances, like the baby in the theater, that require some common sense...but for the most part, I still don't see a reason for anyone to not be tolerant. It's a much easier way of life...My life would be hell if I reported or reacted to *everyone* that pisses me off with their words on a daily basis.

Isn't it much easier to just ignore them and not empower their words?

So, Darwyn, you stand on a street corner and advocate the klilling of all Jews or Blacks or homosexuals and you think people should tolerate your hate speech? I'm sure glad that inciting people to violence is a hate crime and you don't have your way there.

Draug, again, I think that falls under common sense...

If I'm screaming about killing people, no one can be sure that I'm not serious. So I'd say that shouldn't be tolerated.

Look, I'm sure we can go through hundreds of examples where maybe certain speech should not be tolerated. There should be a line that cannot be crossed. I just think the current line is *way* below where it should be. People will narc on you for anything that upsets them. We should not cater to the sensitive. We should promote tolerance. That's my overall point here.

Tolerance. Even bigots have a place in our world.
@Draunar You are not being sensetive to Darwin.

Right, Czech...better to coddle the whiny bitches of the world, eh?

I like that you're sensitive about not being tolerated.

In fact, you've offended me Czech. I must now see to it that you are banned.

Of course, I know you will not be banned. But imagine if everyone felt that way...it's the direction we are headed.

No, I'm just intolerant of sensitivity.

But back to the point of "if it doesn't cause anyone to miss anything."

Let's say that I'm standing on a street corner saying whatever I want, but now I have a megaphone. The volume of my speech outlining my bizarre views on religion is now of a significant enough level that people in the area are having difficulty having personal conversations. Should this be tolerated? What if I deliberately walk up to total strangers and talk at them when they clearly have no desire to talk to me? How far can I go and be tolerated, in your vision?

I'm legitimately curious where the line stands.

"Assuming there are is no middle ground, who wins?"
...and...
"There should be a line that cannot be crossed. I just think the current line is *way* below where it should be."

I was answering your first question. Altering the question midway through the argument is a coward's way of denying he lost.

LMAO, Draug - I'm not worried about winning or losing, moron!...my altering the question was to account for what I thought would be obvious to all when someone asked if killing was to be tolerated.

I, like SacrdDigits, am legitimately curious where the line stands. I have an opinion on the matter but wondered what everyone else thinks.

So, add to the discussion or mute me you fucking jackass!

"The volume of my speech outlining my bizarre views on religion is now of a significant enough level that people in the area are having difficulty having personal conversations. Should this be tolerated?"

I don't think it should, no. You are entitled to free speech, but a megaphone isn't needed unless you are speaking to willing listeners.

I'm starting to think that this topic only really covers the concept of censorship. Not physical abuse. So perhaps the question is too broad and there is a middle ground.

As a father, should you tolerate sex and violence on TV or should others be sensitive to your family it be censored for all?

I think that if someone has a choice, it should be tolerated rather than everyone else being sensitive to it. In other words, tolerance should be based on whether those who are sensitive have a choice or not.

If I don't like what you are saying, I can walk away or choose to ignore you. Shutting that person up doesn't allow them a choice from their freedom to speak, thus it should be tolerated (outside of extenuating circumstances, ie. megaphone or talk of killing, etc.)

What about gay people? Lots of people are sensitive to it...don't wanna see it, hear about it, let alone legalize the marriage of it.

Should we not just tolerate it?

As a father, I make sure that my son only sees things that I believe are age appropriate for him. I'm his babysitter, not Netflix on demand. That said, I have occasionally made bad estimations of what would be contained in something, and I shoulder the burden of giving the explanation.

It would be different if, say, Dora the Explorer suddenly started talking about sexing up Boots or whatever, because in that case, I'd feel that I was expecting exactly what I've watched 80 episodes of, and taking that kind of detour is something I should reasonably expect won't happen. But if I say, "I know just what's in the description of this show" and I don't search it online and just rubber stamp it, I should be prepared for anything.

I have different levels of comfort with a variety of topics than the MPAA or whoever has, for instance, I don't try to pretend that "fuck" is a word that we only use in the most extreme situations. Sexual situations happen in reality, I don't mind if he sees a few boobs. But I don't want to see any kind of implied or on camera drug use, even weed, in things I let my son see,.

@Darwyn - I had just left the LPTTW thread (as opposed to the LPTPW thread) and was in trolling mode. Sorry about that. But the point stands that the original question was something entirely different.

I would raw the line when the speech or action begins to have a cost. Whether it be hate speech whose cost may be lives because it incites others to violence with it's rhetorric, or "abusive" behavior in a theater or on a plane where someone paid money to be watching that movie or taking that flight (especially in the first class/business class cabin), or when it becomes personal (especially attacking a child's self-esteem) in the form of bullying which can have the emotional result of crushing someone already on the line and pushing them over to an action with dire consequences. You may say that person needs a thicker skin, but they may not be in a mental state to have that thick skin. Maybe they just lost a spouse in Iraq and the person running their fucking mouth is with the Westboro Baptist Jackasses. Personally, I think they cross the line when they picket a soldier's funeral. I know the courts don't agree, but if I ever saw the mother fuckers picketing a funeral and I happened to be driving by, their would be bodies lying around where my jeep plowed through them. I don't give a fuck about "manslaughter". I'd just as soon see them dead. No jury in the US would convict me.

So, in short, the line is where there can be a real cost (fiscal, physical, or emotional) attached to the actions or speech.

The cops will generally let you have the one punch/break up the situation a la Jerry Springer unless your one punch does serious lasting damage. Just as a FYI.

So, sliding my Jeep through a crowd of Westboro Baptist Idiots? Will the cops consider that one pucnh as long as I go striaght through and don't like do donuts or back over the bodies and go after another group that fled from the first "punch"?

In case you can't tell, they are starting to piss the fuck out of me.

Tolerance is a personal choice. It requires no governmental action to enforce. If you want to exercise your rights that don't infringe upon my rights, then I will tolerate you. If you infringe upon my rights (I believe in the God given ones FYI) then you should face consequences.
Sensitivity is not a personal choice. It is enforced by a mob based upon what they think is appropriate. It involves victimization and retribution.

@Draugnar. I would serve on that jury and use jury nullification to set you free.