Is it proper for a tolerant person who values tolerance above all else to be intolerant of intolerance and....

I don't think there's an immediate contradiction in the toleration of intolerance. The existence of various fundamentalist sects and hate groups, show for us, with their intolerant views, the extension of toleration, under the umbrella of freedom of religion and speech. Only when the intolerant category commands a certain strength, does the future prospect of toleration call itself into question and act. For if the tolerant tolerated all, the contingent reality is that the intolerant would completely dominate the tolerant -- who may be passive against judgment even of the most heinous crimes.

Toleration faces this condition universally, and our understanding of the horizons for "freedom" qua toleration come through the lens of history. For toleration to survive, it must be intolerant against, not only violence, but threatening ideologies ready to usurp the validity of liberalism. Or, toleration more closely means: tolerating what is tolerable-- to maintain one's ground despite the nuisance of another, and never to draw lines in the sand, so that everyone knows fairly well when "This means WAR!".

But toleration JUST IS an activity of witholding judgment or punishment on the opposition; to tolerate what is already benign is no test of toleration-- only the intolerable is. And it may be a contradiction in the end, that one cannot tolerate what cannot be be tolerated in the same respect. Such freedom that is open only to what it already values is surely some form of dissimulation.

Nothing is or isn't "proper." Life is intrinsically ironic and paradoxical. That said, I'd say it is probably common for a person who values tolerance above all else to be intolerant of intolerance and the intolerant. As long as a person has an attachment to an idea or belief it will cause conflict in that persons mind. Only when a person is able to release the attachment to that thought or value (not the thought or value itself) will the paradox be resolved.

Yes, the tolerant can (and should be) intolerant of intolerance. If it sounds paradoxical, that's okay. The universe runs on paradox. But not standing for the intolerance of others doesn't mean that you won't tolerate the persons themselves. Another famous paradoxical statement says that you can hate sin while still loving the sinner. We can not tolerate intolerance without being violent, or even rude and alienating, to the intolerant. As others have mentioned, if you try to educate, you are not tolerating intolerance, but taking action against it.

i love Pirate AM™'s answer. i imagine that's glaring that conserving an approach of tolerance in any respect costs is basically as undesirable because the spirit of intolerance. both extremes pose a probability to the necessary rights and freedoms that all and sundry in loose societies take excitement in. Europe and the united kingdom are vacationing down a very risky course lately. The might want to understand o.k. what the extremes of tolerance and intolerance lead as a lot as. Attitudes most popular as a lot as WWII: Neville Chamberlain and many western eu leaders= passive, susceptible tolerance. Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany = severe, severe intolerance. end outcome......conflict, death, melancholy. Nuff reported.

When you ask about intolerance of the intolerant are asking a personal or political question? There's a big difference. One is matter of opinion and preference. The other is using power to restrict. Just because I believe in extending freedoms of speech and religion to people I find disagreeable doesn't mean that I am willing to have lunch with them.

I think so. If you tolerate intolerence then you allow it to grow and spread.

A tolerant person shouldn't tolerate intolerence - even though that's technically a paradox.

No. To be intolerant of the intolerant is still intolerance. Instead of cutting themselves off from the intolerant and going against their beliefs of tolerance, the tolerant should instead attempt to educate the intolerant in order to help them be more tolerant.

In other words, fighting ignorance with ignorance is ignorant.

and you have a lot of time on your hands.

A tolerant person should realize that it is only he who he should be concerned with. So the tolerant person should only worry about whether or not he is tolerant. The tolerance levels of other people should be of no concern to him. If however he finds himself judging the tolerance of others he is not truly tolerant and thereby not any different than the sheepish masses.

no either you are intolerant or you are not if you decide that you are only partially tolerant then you can pick those things that you are intolerant about and therefore maintain you status as A partially tolerant person this is a real answer and not a tongue twister

maybe because u value tolerance u try to be and have it though u dont,so u suppress alot of things in u and when u have no more capacity to be tolerant u get bored of pretending to be or try to be so u become intolerant of intolerance