Great idea to spread the link.
I did know of TED videos - they are wonderful talks by experts at the cutting edge of their fields just telling you in an easy conversational style something very very interesting about the world we live in.
Worth bookmarking as a favourite and browsing when you have 20 minutes to spare.
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Anotherjimbo
Over 90 days ago
Straight Male, 68
0 miles · Greater London
Forum
Quote by Kaznkev
I like what you said there Jimbo.
Toleration need not be a permanent state, if that which needs tolerence goes beyond acceptable boundaries surely?
Should not tolerance be applied where the benefits to the tolerated individual/group and the remainder of society (I'm using society as an example, but I guess indivual relationships could/should work in the same manner) maintain a level of parity?
I would suppose that an open dialogue would also be needed to help keep this co-existance.
when that goes, sharpen your implements I suppose.
lp
the problem with allowing tolerance to be a moveable boundary is that we are then left with no solid foundation for what is use the benifit to society as a whole is,a i am sure you are aware,simply utilitarianism and 30s Germany shows us how the greater good can lead us down dark paths,
For example, i am open to all kinks but will not tolerate Gor, i feel it is outside my beliefs as a woman and a feminist, i do not need to tolerate something that i believe is harmful because my morals overide my need for tolerance
There seems to be here the idea that "to be tolerant" is the way we should act towards each one another all the time. But I don't think this is so and I come back to my previous point about tolerance being a tentative state. All of us, living in what we are lucky enough to be a fairly free society, are just that, free to pursue our own life without sanction as long as we keep within legal and general social boundaries. To say that I "tolerate" you when you have a different lifestyle to me is just patronising: in the real sense of a condescending indulgence on my part to put up with you. But how can this be when you are free to do as you wish? What right do I have to be tolerant of something that is yours already?
Surely tolerance only comes into play when boundaries are crossed in an ambiguous way, a provisional state is required: tolerance comes into play as a personal restraint pending the final outcome of your activity. Sometimes it appears someone or thing may be wrong but it is the right thing after all, without tolerance we would have slammed down on it at the start and never discovered the good outcome.
Does this make sense?
(By the way, what is Gor - it's driving bonkers!)
Should we tolerate the intolerant?
Surely tolerance is not a permanent state but one of tentative judgement awaiting action. We tolerate certain people or activities pending our observation to see if they they turn out good or redeem themselves in some way. If they don't we then no longer tolerate them or the activity: we condemn it and/or apply some sanction to stop the behaviour.
Tolerance is about having the grace and kindness to give someone or something a chance. It is not about having to endure unacceptable behaviour or activities.
This is an interesting thread, and made me think.
Surely tolerance is not a permanent state but one of tentative judgement awaiting action. We tolerate certain people or activities pending our observation to see if they they turn out good or redeem themselves in some way. If they don't we then no longer tolerate them or the activity: we condemn it and/or apply some sanction to stop the behaviour.
Tolerance is about having the grace and kindness to give someone or something a chance. It is not about having to endure unacceptable behaviour or activities.
This is an interesting thread, and made me think.
How I think it works....
The Government gives our money to the banks to bail them out. It's not a loan (because they can't pay it back) so the Government takes ownership of the bank, or most of it. We now own the bank.
But the Government needs to get "our" money back so later it sells the part of the bank it owns to anyone who wants to buy the shares and takes the money and pays it back into the Treasury where it originally was paid out from. We don't pay twice because only those who want to own the shares will buy them, and hopefully, at a price the Government makes a profit.
It sounds straightforward, (but have I missed something?)
The Government gives our money to the banks to bail them out. It's not a loan (because they can't pay it back) so the Government takes ownership of the bank, or most of it. We now own the bank.
But the Government needs to get "our" money back so later it sells the part of the bank it owns to anyone who wants to buy the shares and takes the money and pays it back into the Treasury where it originally was paid out from. We don't pay twice because only those who want to own the shares will buy them, and hopefully, at a price the Government makes a profit.
It sounds straightforward, (but have I missed something?)
How I think it works....
The Government gives our money to the banks to bail them out. It's not a loan (because they can't pay it back) so the Government takes ownership of the bank, or most of it. We now own the bank.
But the Government needs to get "our" money back so later it sells the part of the bank it owns to anyone who wants to buy the shares and takes the money and pays it back into the Treasury where it originally was paid out from. We don't pay twice because only those who want to own the shares will buy them, and hopefully, at a price the Government makes a profit.
It sounds straightforward, (but have I missed something?)
The Government gives our money to the banks to bail them out. It's not a loan (because they can't pay it back) so the Government takes ownership of the bank, or most of it. We now own the bank.
But the Government needs to get "our" money back so later it sells the part of the bank it owns to anyone who wants to buy the shares and takes the money and pays it back into the Treasury where it originally was paid out from. We don't pay twice because only those who want to own the shares will buy them, and hopefully, at a price the Government makes a profit.
It sounds straightforward, (but have I missed something?)
I voted no, but in fact history will be even more harsh in its judgement than we are now.
Why? Because we know he lied and can see the terrible result of that, but only the future will know how long the Allies will have had to stay in Iraq to bring it back to some semblance of order (if ever) and the full toll of human and financial damage that an Ego on legs can bring about.
Why? Because we know he lied and can see the terrible result of that, but only the future will know how long the Allies will have had to stay in Iraq to bring it back to some semblance of order (if ever) and the full toll of human and financial damage that an Ego on legs can bring about.
Whether or not climate change is ultimately real, or not, it is interesting to see so many apparently opposing groups side up with the global warming scam because it suits their own financial agenda.
Furthermore, I think carbon trading will be seen as one of the great financial scams of the 21century if allowed to take off as planned. Already the EU pays billions for carbon offset credits to countries such as China. Do we really believe that a place like China which shoots its own people, stamps violently on political dissent is going to be honest about providing real offset activities - who will check? It's more likely the money is being spent on a new carrier fleet to threaten Taiwan sometime in the future. Who is going to protect them - certainly not the U.S. anymore who are in hock to the Chinese.
Just my 2 pence.
Jim
Furthermore, I think carbon trading will be seen as one of the great financial scams of the 21century if allowed to take off as planned. Already the EU pays billions for carbon offset credits to countries such as China. Do we really believe that a place like China which shoots its own people, stamps violently on political dissent is going to be honest about providing real offset activities - who will check? It's more likely the money is being spent on a new carrier fleet to threaten Taiwan sometime in the future. Who is going to protect them - certainly not the U.S. anymore who are in hock to the Chinese.
Just my 2 pence.
Jim
Hi everyone,
I have been around, now and again, for a while as a lurker only as I was in a relationship so it was not appropriate to participate.
That situation has changed now and separated from my former partner so I'm looking to meet ladies looking for fun, and perhaps something more. I hope to join in the general chatter and make friends in what has always seemed a very lively and friendly site. Send me a line if my profile interests you (photo to follow).
Take care
Jim
I have been around, now and again, for a while as a lurker only as I was in a relationship so it was not appropriate to participate.
That situation has changed now and separated from my former partner so I'm looking to meet ladies looking for fun, and perhaps something more. I hope to join in the general chatter and make friends in what has always seemed a very lively and friendly site. Send me a line if my profile interests you (photo to follow).
Take care
Jim
