meyelin: Sorry, I had to take a break from posting here. Okay, regarding your question should all opinions be tolerated. If your answer is yes, shouldn't mine be? Anyways, getting away from being mr. smarty pants. I'm fine as long as I can still be who I am. Also, not all opinions are tolerable. Sometimes, we need to employ discernment and figure out which ones are and are not tolerable. I respect your opinion regarding what we have discussed, and hopefully you respect mine. There's no real harm in either of our standpoints. I.E. I think we need GOD in america again, you think there's no need. Oh well, just opinions. It's not like we're going to die for them. There are toxic ones though, look at the muslim terrorists. Once again, I'm calling for discernment to decide which ones should be tolerated and which ones need to be eradicated. That's all.

FaithFighter : first, no I don't believe in tolerating very single opinion. I do tolerate yours, I won't try to impede your right to hold it, or will I ever be violent to you for it, but I will starkly manifest my disagreement and tell you without any sugar coating that it is unconstitutional and incoherent with human rights and modern democracy. However, I will not tolerate an opinion like yours by someone in government, I'd immediately call for their impeachment if any official stood for making any religion or religious belief official or favored by public entities. This also applies to lack of religion: I disagree strongly with how China denies office to religious people just as I disagree with how Texas does to atheists. 

Unless the said opinion calls for the explicit violation of someone's life of property, then yes (let's not get into the abortion debate, it's a whole subject in itself).

An opinion is merely a way to see the world according to one's upbringing. Although I agree with Objectivists - I believe in objective moralities that can be discovered by reason - I recognize that not everyone see the world as I do. I call it "temporary ignorance"; with life and experience, many people come to realize that they, not government, are the best ones to decide what is best for them.

Trying to sort out which opinion is good and which is bad can only lead to arbitrary decisions as we saw until the Renaissance. When only one opinion is deemed "good" and everything else is hunted down, it gives the Inquisition (which some Democrats are reviving with their climate witch hunt), gulags/political prisons and even mass murders - Mao's China saw a massive "cleansing" of it bourgeois elements.

Honestly, this question struck me as simple at first, but it's actually a pretty tricky one.
I read a lot of answers that led to "Morally right opinions should be tolerated", but that doesn't track.

As any philosopher worth his salt will tell you, morality is subjective.
Take the Pro-Life/Pro-Choice argument. A ton of people think Abortion is Morally wrong, while many other disagree.
As far as "hurting other people", what about arguments over the death penalty? Or War?
I'b bet willing to be some (not all) of the people who said the have no tolerance for opinions that call for hurting others, were also people who supported some wars because they believed the cause just.

Take WWII. Not just the fact that I doubt that Hitler thought he was evil, but what about the decision to fight Hitler?
You don't think they planned to hurt a lot of Germans? Yeah, I agree the Nazi's deserved it, but that's not the point.
That was an opinion that rooted in hurting people.
Yes you could say that was justified, but that moves the line. Now, you have to ask what justifies violence? And I bet I can find an exception for whatever rule you say there, too.

I don't think there is an objective line. For me, I have no tolerance for opinions that show no attempt to understand other points of view. 
Religious intolerance, intolerance for people with a lack of religious inclination, Homophobia, sexism, racism, and the like. You make arguments in that direction, and I shut you off.

Politically speaking, I refuse to debate gay marriage. Simply put, I don't think this should be an issue.

edit: fixed small errors

Myelin :

If everything deserves tolerance, then intolerance deserves tolerance. The contradiction is obvious.

Certain things should not be tolerated. Jim Jones founded "the people's temple", a cult, in LA. When the kidnappings and workcamps were published about in the local media, his cult became illegal and was forced out of California. This was proper intoleration.

He moved himself and his followers to Guyana, a country in south america. Guyana tolerated them. Guyana actually benefited from rich Americans moving in and creating trade. Eventually, over 900 men, women, and children drank poisoned kool-aid and died. It's the largest mass-suicide in modern history, and until 9/11, it was the largest loss of American civilian life from a single deliberate act. Intolerance could have saved them.

Txgangsta: You're proving my point. As long as a person's life is not in danger, then all ideas can be tolerated. I've never heard of your story but it was a prime example of why some ideas can't be tolerated.

Back in the early 1990s there was this religious cult in Quebec where many people had limbs severed. After some of them broke their silence, leaders were arrested and thrown to jail. This HAD to happen as it attacked people.

Dunno how much of a debate I'll have here, buuut... I personally draw the line at racist, sexist, and...whatever the word is for people who have GIANT GLARING ISSUES with various LGBTQA people opinions...and sometimes blatantly ableist opinions, those can be a bit harder to see for what they are.

Maybe it's because I'm mixed-race though I 'pass' for white, I'm a woman, I have autism, and I'm asexual and demi-romantic.  All of which seem to make me and people like me a target for hate-filled opinions on the internet and real life. So no, I don't tolerate that. 

Really I guess all of those can be stuck under the "hate speech opinion" label, so I should just do that. I refuse to tolerate mindless hate speech. I won't hate you for being that way, personally, but I can hate the words that come out of your mouth when you start spewing, and I don't have to listen to it or tolerate it being around me. Is that putting me in the 'intolerant people' camp, or am I being rational there? I don't know, though I hope it's the latter. 

Yunimori : The key word here is tolerance, NOT acceptation. And the meaning of toleration here (I believe) is legal. While you don't have to accept or tolerate hateful speech against whomever, you must nevertheless NOT ask for government to censor them.

If anything, letting people freely expose their hatred is the best way to avoid them, and therefore not patronize them. If the Civil Rights Act weren't so invasive, then free markets could very easily take care of racism and discrimination. Hell, even the governor of Indiana said HE wouldn't go to a restaurant that discriminates gays, showing that people can easily "vote with their feet".

One easy way to get over Internet bullying (whenever it's possible) is to simply block your haters. I often post on the Huffington Post blog and my opinions are usually diametrically opposed to the majority's. I simply use the block function on Facebook so I don't see their comments anymore (the same thing goes for Twitter). Many forums also have a report function, so flag those people that directly attack you and their comments are very likely to disappear. 

janus: Ah, if 'tolerance' is meant here in a legal sense, then I retract my statements above, because you are right. It would be wrong to censor free speech, taking away that right, and yes, the easiest way to avoid hateful people is to let them air their views so you know to stay away.

If it's meant in the way I was defining it, however, I don't retract what I said one bit. I am not censoring your right to free speech and to hate how you want, but that doesn't mean I have to listen to it or 'tolerate' it in my personal airspace bubble.

As for internet bullying, believe me, I do. I use the block function a lot against people who come into my inbox on Tumblr especially. You would not BELIEVE the amount of hate I get from anonymous users on my main blog, simply for being me, or the amount I get on my role playing blogs for some of the same reasons. It gets ridiculous sometimes, and since I am a very anxious person, it can be...stressful, to say the least. I use the block a lot. Thank you for the advice, though, it really is appreciated. 

janus :

But I want to censor them before they hurt people. This means that the harm principle is only the weakest of standards.

I would not tolerate someone teaching the phlogiston theory of combustion. That has nothing to do with harm. It's just bad science.

I would not tolerate a family member that was making drastically unethical decisions.

I would not tolerate anyone I lived with being an alcoholic.

And none of those things have to do with harming others.

Txgangsta : So you would advocate for censoring the teaching of creationism? I would certainly argue against it in tax-funded institutions since it has no peer-reviewed basis.

What about climate science? Is the science so settled that showing any doubts on the catastrophic, anthropomorphic global warming is a sin against Gaia?

"I would not tolerate anyone I lived with being an alcoholic."

Neither would I, unless that person was immediate family. In that case I would do everything I can to convince him/her to stop this destructive behavior.

Also, by curiosity: how do you "hurt" people? By harming the physically? psychologically? emotionally?

Yunimori I don't know the original intent of the author, but I just wanted to show you both meanings of the word. I wholeheartedly agree with you about not tolerating hatred around you. I've been the punching bag from K to 11 so I know how it feels. Nevertheless, unless one advocates for murder or physical harm, then governments have to tolerate them. That's why the KKK still exists - when they murdered someone they were indicted in the post-Jim Crow South.

janus :

Like I said in another thread, I think you and I have different definitions of censorship. I think creationism is false and I think public schools do censor it by not teaching it and instead teaching evolutionary theory.

Climate change might be a different story. Predictions for thousands of years only has ~40 years of accurate data. Data collections only really started in 1880s, but those were often with poor instruments. I think that it's not arguable that climate is changing, but whether it's the CO2   emissions causing it is certainly up in the air. Nevertheless, I'd still advocate taking care of our planet.

In a way you could say that opinions are kind of like religions (not saying a religion is a opinion, well it is in terms of what one you choose to believe but I hope you understand what I mean even though I might not of clarified what I mean) as long as you have on and believe in it your just fine as long as you don't try to force it onto people and not every opinion should be tolerated opinion's that are based off ones own other opinion's (hey oh) and not on facts can be so incorrect that its borderline dumb but it could be what that person actually believe so when you say hey I don't tolerate that opinion because blah blah blah you could shatter that's persons hopes and belief's and what not but then again opinions based off of facts could also be wrong because what we have said to be true could be wrong weather it be miscommunication or a factor that wasn't there before is there now (I'm mainly talking about scientific theories that have been proven true but hey rearrange those words and it might fit everything.) I have a feeling I completely skipped over the question but I also feel like I answered 1/3 of it too not to sure really 0,o.

ThanatosUnraveld :

That is the longest run-on sentence I have ever seen...

To me it depends on how rude or polite the opinion is. If it is a rude opinion, it should not be tolerated. If it is polite, every opinion should be tolerated.

Txgangsta : Ya i know i have a long time trying to make my sentences shorter but i am trying to fix that :/

DestinyHeroDC : Who gets to decide what's rude and what isn't? Someone people vote for? LOL 
I say all opinions no matter how unpopular or abhorrent must be tolerated in a free society. Opinions in themselves aren't dangerous. When the expression of opinion infringes on the rights of others however it should be squashed.

Ferdinand : If you yourself thinks it is rude. Do not tolerate it. That is what I meant.

DestinyHeroDC : The world is populated with a whole lot of rude people. It's important to pick your battles wisely. If you can't tolerate rudeness, life's going to be pretty rough. But I understand what you mean I think, I find it best not to dwell on things that I cannot affect a change upon. Not to be rude...

Ferdinand : Yeah. I have a ridiculously low tolerance for rudeness. But I am extremely patient with rude people. Go figure.