I beg your pardon for my curious reading thoughts. But the above mentioned question is what I am ponderring on.
I am participating in a german native forum where political issues are contrarily discussed. It is about the immigrant issue, about climate change and about social tasks. And there is a group of people that are pretty intolerant as about the obvious problems concerning the whole world. It´s been easy to blame them for their intolerance towards foreigners, members of different religions and climate protectors.
More and more obviously people from the intolerant party pass by and complain about the intolerance of the tolerant.
Now this makes me wonder whether it is the tolerance towards intoleance or the intolerance towards intolerance what causes the fall of tolerance.
Anyone an idea?
It should be the intolerance towards intolerance that causes the fall of tolerance.
Perhaps, tolerance towards intolerance causes the rise of tolerance.
I think discussing what’s tolerable and what is not is a rather philosophical question since any society is constantly evolving which results in changing standards, rules and laws.
Hi Lawrence. Thanks for your reply. And yes,that is exactly what I am ponderring on. Does it require a special thinking to come to your point?
I mean, nowadays people like to consider everything from the scientifical logic. If we evaluated in this sence:
tolerance is the positiv aspect and hence we could take it as (+) tolerance
intolerance is the lack if tolerance and we can take it as (-) tolerance.
Now put them into a multiplication we might get 3 formulars:
#1 (+)tolerance * (+)tolerance = (+)tolerance²
#2 (-)tolerance * (-)tolerance = (+)tolerance² (pretty questionable, isn´t it?)
#3 (-)tolerance * (+)tolerance = (-)tolerance²
Well, I think, my idea is a bit simple as we are talking about human attitudes here.
Torsten you made a point here. according to you we even have to tolerate limits of tolerance. And tolerance is dependent on time spirit. But doesn´t limitting tolerance lead to intolerance?
Sorry, to you both for my pretty curious thoughts again. But I wonder if it weren´t time to think through basics.
Michael, it is really interesting. But would you see what happens when they are ‘put into an addition’? I think your equations will get upset!
Lawrernce, yep I of course also took addition into consideration. The equations would look:
- (+)tolerance + (+)tolerance = 2 (+) tolerance
- (-)tolerance + (-)tolerance = 2 (-) tolerance
- (+)tolerance + (-)tolerance = 0 tolerance
well you are right, the results might look somewhat less radical.
Plus since “tolerance” is just a variable one should fill the equations with real values. As Torsten wrote rules and laws probably would make the calculations much more alive.
Oh, although I’m confused, the addition equation seems more logic to me (I can somewhat understand by my narrow point of view), I think.
Madam Rmzi. don´t worry, I am the same curious. That´s why I opened this topic.
Anyway thanks fpr your point of view. 
Hello, Sir Michael. I’m not fluent in the English language and smart and intelligent (brilliant) as you and the others in the forum. Believe me, sir, I do not understand the subject of the topic, only that I accepted the apparent result minus/plus equation more than the multiplication equation result especially (-) *(-)= +, and I tried to understand the exact meaning of tolerance and intolerance, but I failed. I understand “tolerance” as “the bearing”. I’m not highly graduated. I’m a simple villager who has a narrow point of view. I share in the conversation as a trial to learn and understand English that is used by natives. I do not understand everything that I read. Even that, I did not understand every sentence in your reply. I only understand few sentences. Many thanks, sir, for your reply.
Best regards