Tolerance of opinion.....

[Daniel]

Yeah, some of my best friends are at the opposite end of the political compass to me. But we always have a laugh about are differences when we are talking about politics.

But some of the people on the forum (not just this one) seem to view people with the opposite political opinions as 'enemies' and have their views set in stone. These people can't understand that others have different opinions to them.

and then there are some people who are surprised when one of these people who is on the other side says something they agree with.

[anthonyvop]

Funny thing is that in most issues I am conservative but in others I am what many consider ultra-liberal.
Religion and Abortions comes to mind.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Funny thing is that in most issues I am conservative but in others I am what many consider ultra-liberal.
Religion and Abortions comes to mind.

I am less conservative than you on a lot of things, but MORE on Abortions and as for religion, I think people making it a whipping boy while forgetting of course that freedom of religion is a paramount right in the US in particular, and most of the western world. It means you might have to tolerate some relgions you don't agree with. As long as they don't countervene the rights of others, I am all for it. Where people seem to get confused on religion is that religion has the right to NOT like some aspects of a libreal modern society. The Catholic Church does not approve of pre-maritial sex, gay marriage or abortion. I am fine with that as long as they don't impose those views on people forcefully. A woman in the US can still have an abortion, but not in a Catholic supported hospital. The woman can have pre-marital sex, but cant turn around and demand the Catholic Church support that, and a gay couple can get married in some civil jurisdictions, but they cannot sue to make the church officiate. Tolerance is a two way street.....

I am anti-abortion, BUT I would never advocate the state take that right away since it is only my opinion, and the realist in me knows that it will happen anyhow. If there is a higher power ( and I believe there is ) then he/she will make that judgement right?

I have great arguments on here, and I sometimes go too far in my debates online here, but I do respect those on the other side for the most part. Tolerence doesn't mean you agree, just understand you cannot win some arguments. Doesn't stop me from trying tho...lol

[Eki]

Tolerence doesn't mean you agree,

I hope you remember that the next time I defend Castro, Saddam, Hitler, Stalin, etc. The fact that I see the logic behind their actions doesn't mean I agree morally with their actions or even that I agree their actions were the most efficient in achieving their goals.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I hope you remember that the next time I defend Castro, Saddam, Hitler, Stalin, etc. The fact that I see the logic behind their actions doesn't mean I agree morally with their actions or even that I agree their actions were the most efficient in achieving their goals.

Eki, You go out of your way so often to agree with these mooks that I wonder about your morality at times. The logical part of me agrees that you don't condone these actions, but the zeal you go after Bush or anyone who even remotely looks like him says to me that your view of the world is so skewed you cannot be objective about the dictators and be defending them for the sake of defending them. I don't have a problem with understanding that the dictators see the world differently. Where you and I disagree is you can find merit in their arguments. I do not for the reason that their monstrous crimes against their fellow man makes their excuses or justifications to be purely superflous. There is no defense of true evil.

Bush on the other hand was a sometimes confused and morally challenged on some tasks at hand by a situation filled with a lot of grey's. Bush didn't set up a machine to kill people. The torture people accuse him of is non-lethal. What is more, he at least was elected and faced opposition in a democratic society for his government's actions. There is accountability for what he did in his own nation. He also didn't do it alone, and many other nations either signed on or tacitly approved. There is legal authority for his misjudged occupation of Iraq. It may not be what you want to hear, but my defense of a Bush is a heck of a lot more based in OUR values of democracy and tolerence than your defence of some really vile human beings Eki. I am not asking you to like Bush, love him or god forbid defend him. What I am asking you to grasp that your defense of Saddam for the regime he ran is a lot more silly to a rational mind than anyone's defense of Bush.

It is one thing to run a country after being elected to the post and stepping down when it is your time to go. It is yet another to run a regime dedicated to your unlimited rule, including taking way democratic rights, imposing a police state on its citizens, and torturing and killing those who oppose you or just happen to be from the wrong group. Chavez hasn't done the last part, but he is on his way with all the other's. You want to defend those people Eki, it is your choice, but please don't get mad when your vehement defense of these slimeballs can sometimes have me and others questioning your morality and tolerance...