What's the deal with Tolerance?

The point of this thread is to highlight words that modern or colloquial society has changed the meaning of. My example is:

Tolerance
The word itself is based on a greek word "Tolehru" (i might be slightly off on the spelling as i don't have a Ancient Greek keyboard), and simply meant "To bear with" or "Put up with". In fact, the most common usage of the word is used for slaves (citation needed) whereby they had to put up with poor treatment.

Despite what most dictionaries say, most people would tell you (i think) that Tolerance means to say that everybody's right. This idea/ attitude irritates the crap out of me- for the simple fact that it isn't true. Two opposing views cannot be right, and i'll give you an example.

One weather man says we will have rain, the other says to expect no clouds in the sky- the modern idea of tolerance would have me believe both men, one of whom has clearly been on the pipe when he should have been checking his facts from the Bureau of Meteorology. Yes i realise this is a silly example but it does highlight the problem with our societies attitude of "Tolerance".

I have never heard the word "tolerance" use that way. You should tell them that you don't think that word means what they think that word means.

Then why is Arch-Bishop Jensen accused of being intolerant for saying he believes Islam is wrong?

Edit
It was his brother the dean of St Andrews Cathedral, and what he said was Islam and Christianity don't lead to the same God.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,18817748-1242,00.html?from=rss

Because one should put up with other peoples beliefs.

Because he's not tolerating their beliefs, by textbook definition.

He didn't say that they should be chased away- what he did say was that he disagrees with them

Wow, I just read that artical and in my opion there was nothing intolerance about it, he was simply stating a fact.

Either both are wrong or one is right and the other is wrong.

But both of them cannot be right.

Saying something is "wrong" carries a whole extra connotation to saying "I disagree". I think it's fairly safe to infer (if he used the word "wrong") that if he had his way, there would be no Islam.

edit: And yes, that doesn't sound in the least intolerant, but Glen didn't start by telling us those quotes, he started with "Islam is wrong."

And yet- when a church leader says his faith is the right one (in his own church, mind you) and that other faiths aren't why is he attacked as "intolerant" or "racist"?

In any case- what other words do you guys think have changed their meanings over time?

But who's attacking him? Muslims? The same people that burned embassies based on cartoons drawn and published by a non-believer? The kind of people in Islam that get offended by that sort of thing can be disregarded, as far as I'm concerned.

Yeah, in the artical it didn't say anything like group x or y were up in arms. Whos actually whineing about this?

I think most of the attacks may have started their- but Newspapers do have a tendency to add fuel to fire, so to speak. The Australian usually has something to say about the Sydney Anglican church each week.

Edit

To make that clearer- ACA made a comment about it at the time, and the Australian ran a letter to the editor style thing but seemed to only publish negative letters... this was all 2 years ago, and i can't find links to it.

ACA is the lowest form of news, its the sun style news, bunk and fear mongering. I have NO time for that crap.

True- but lots of people do watch and *shudder* trust it.

Glenjamin wrote:In any case- what other words do you guys think have changed their meanings over time?

This question is kinda about language, and so on that tenuous link I'll mention a specific something that falls under the fascinating category of Linguistics, perhaps more specifically the evolution of languages, which is a very broad topic, I know.

This specific one, of which I only know a little about, had to do with the situation of when languages come into contact with one another, and then inevitably, either through a conscious attempt or an unconscious happening, the two languages trade words. The particular example that I remember was when a South East Asian country (I think. Not entirely important) borrowed an English word. The reason they borrowed it evidently was because of the 'industrialisation' that was occurring in their country because the word was "Keep Left", as in those signs you see on traffic islands in the centre of the road.

Now, understandably, and interestingly, most of the native population didn't understand what it meant (I have no idea why it wasn't in their native tongue, and what sort of traffic confusions it may have caused. Probably not many.) So anyway, eventually each traffic island became know as a Keepleft and, obviously, when needed to speak of them in plural, they became Keeplefti (which is the way this particular language designated plurals, which is fascinating in itself. The actual spelling I'm not sure of). Which I thought was a little amusing in a cute sort of way.

I guess the point of this was more about how other cultures are perceived. When looking at the above example, I think it's hard not to see the other culture as being a little "simple" (?), in just adopting this term without understanding what its origins are and what it means and so forth. And then it's easy to forget - or more accurately, not even see - when we do the same. There's obviously many, many examples that you could give me (and please do) of when this has occurred in English, and every language, and here's one off the top of my head:

Hamburger. The origin of this word, as I'm sure you all know, comes from something like the Hamburg Steak, named after the city of Hamburg. But, in English, when people aren't aware of its origins or what it "means" have assumed, rather clumsily, that the "HAM" in Hamburger refers to the meat, and so have coined all sorts of phrases like "Fish Burger" and "Beef Burger" and what not. Silly.

The other Children are right to laugh at you Ralph...

I didn't realise that's actually where the word came from, nice work Andy.

Also, Glen, you should have called this topic "And what's all this crap I'm hearin' about tolerance these days?"

Yep, Simpsons' quote for everything.

^^^^^^
Not even.

There's a totally awesome topic title that everyone seems to have missed...

Glenjamin wrote:The word itself is based on a greek word "Tolehru"

TOLEROOO!!!!

Also, Glen is totally right. It's not intolerant to call what someone else believes 'wrong', it's just differing in opinion, but a lot of the stupids in society tend to take it to mean almost anything. Think of the South Park episode where Michael Jackson runs around calling everyone 'ignorant', you'll get the idea.

Anyway, I'm getting chased out of the computer lab by safety and security. To my room with me!

I just thought i'd use a Sienfeld quote instead- Freedom of Speech/ quoting damnit!

Seriously this site is f'ing wicked. I am more going on the word changing rather than the islam good/bad debate.

www.etymonline.com

I recomend looking up 'window'.

Now to way in on this this is rather topical for me in particular today because i accidentally was incredibly stupid this morning when i said, on office time nad through office email to some other friends outside the office that 'i hate muslims'. Now i wasn't being totally serious, although i do think that compared to most religions out there islam is the one that most disagrees with me.

The question this poses: does 'tollerance' of other beliefs truly mean that you can't 'hate' them. Tollerance in itself actually bares the conotation that you dont agree with it. To take it a step further if you hate said ideology (which i don't T.) then you should be applauded as being more tollerant for not doing anything about it!

My answer is that tollerance does not necessarily imply that you have to try to understand them, or that you have to shake your head and smile and say things like what would the world be like if we were all the same eh?.

In glens case the Arch Bishop was voicing an oppinion. In terms of modern understanding of tollerance he was being 'intollerant'. But he wasn't doing anything about it. He wasn't taking to the streets to stamp it out. He wasn't even opining the abolition of Islam. I don't think that a view can be intollerant since you can be tollerant inspite of your views. It is actions that are intollerant.

You actually sent an email that said "I hate muslims"?? Wow. And that's why you've finally got time to come on the forum now; because you're fired, and sitting at home, or possibly captive in some crazed muslim's house. Isn't it?

Good point on the tolerating though.

1) Tom has more than doubled his post count with this broadside on the forum

2) That post reads kinda like Nick

Good to see you, Tom!

What are you so skeptical about Nick?