It’s inevitable, attempting to be completely tolerant is impossible-multiple warrants
(Schvoong.com is a website that provides summaries of works and briefs on certain subjects, “The Myth of Absolute Tolerance, March 20, 2008, http://www.shvoong.com/social-sciences/1787633-myth-absolute-tolerance/ JSkoog)
Tolerance as a virtue is badly needed today, especially in the context of the pluralism of our times. Historians tell us that the last century has been the bloodiest and it is anybody’s guess as to what was the chief cause for it. Even in a nation like India where, as Radhakrishanan described tolerance in Hinduism as the ‘deathly hug of a bear’, we have witnessed intolerance at its worst in recent times. Surely there is need for a fresh look at the whole idea of tolerance and the need ever greater for it to be taught and practiced by every one. Is tolerance possible in all a situations and at all times? If it is, then what kind of tolerance is it that is needed? The intolerance and the hatred of opposing viewpoints even among the so-called tolerating societies have demonstrated sufficiently, one hopes, that something is faulty about our understanding about tolerance. It certainly suggests that absolute tolerance is an illusion and to think that tolerance can be practised without any regard for truth or to desist from any value judgments is, in the final analysis self-defeating and suicidal. You will notice that even they are intolerant. They are intolerant towards the intolerant. Their position is that every viewpoint is equally valid and therefore must be tolerated. But trouble comes when they are faced with those who hold that every view or belief is not equally valid and that theirs is the right one. The proponents of tolerance cannot put up with such a view. This very fact brings home to us that absolute tolerance is an impossible position to hold and is self defeating. It is impossible because some intolerance seems inevitable. It is self-defeating because while claiming to be tolerant they cannot tolerate those who disagree with them and end up being intolerant. Besides if you begin to tolerate every view or belief, you end up being subsumed by those who believe that their view is right. The ‘deathly hug of a bear’ indeed, dragging the bear to its own death! To begin with, dictionaries tell us that tolerance has to do with attitudes or a willingness to bear or accept. Responses and attitudes are not values or standards and cannot be talked about in terms of absolutes. We talk of absolutes in the context of truth, values, and norms or standards. Secondly when we talk of tolerance there is a suggestion that there is something that is the mean, norm or a standard and any deviation from it can or cannot be tolerated. So tolerance is an attitude shown to accept a deviation or a difference from a norm, belief, or a viewpoint. It needs to be noted that the idea of tolerance suggests that there is a disagreement about an issue and therefore the need for tolerance about the disagreement. It also suggests that there is what is known as a median or a norm or even a standard and any deviation from it can or cannot be tolerated. J.P. Moreland and Wm Lane Craig tell us that the principle of tolerance has been defined as Classical and the Modern versions. “According to the classical sense of the principle of tolerance, a person holds that his ownmoral views are true and those of his opponent are false. But he still respects his opponent as a person and his right to make a case for his views. Thus there is a duty to tolerate a different moral view, not in the sense of thinking it is morally correct, but quite the opposite, in the sense that a person will continue to value and respect one’s opponent, to treat him with dignity, to recognize his right to argue for and propagate his ideas and so forth”. While, “the modern version of tolerance, popular in the general culture, goes beyond the classical version in claiming that one should not even judge that other people’s viewpoints are wrong”. It is commendable that it desists from any value judgments. But, one of the problems with this view is that it has mistaken truth for tastes. In the area of arts and culture, as Mortimer J. Adler argues, where astes reign supreme, tolerance is desirable and to be expected. But in matters of truth and values, tolerance tantamount to dismissing all value judgments as matters of taste rather than as matters of truth. In matters of truth, there are bound to be exclusive claims and therefore tend towards intolerance. But again as Adler quoting J.S. Mill, argues, “Mill advocates the toleration of individuals who differ in thought and speech, but not tolerance for competing doctrines or opinions, as if they were all equally acceptable or preferable. He does not look upon pluralism with respect to matters of truth in the same way he looks upon pluralism with respect to matters of taste”. Finally if our aim is the pursuit of truth then we need the ‘classical’ kind of tolerance. It is mature and robust, for while holding one’s own position as true, it treats its opponents with respect and makes room for them to exist and express. We certainly do not need the tongue-in-cheek kind of tolerance, which makes dubious claims to tolerance. Nor do we need the kind of intolerance that attempts to regiment culture and practices and enforce faith and religion suppressing freedom of expression and thought.
Project Uplift was abandoned in the 80s – didn’t have unanimous support and too many negative consequences
Ariana, Pleiadian Walk In and Channel and Communicator, Healer and Artist, 2011 (Anakya, 5/2/2011, “Channelling, Human Ascension: Earth Changes and Evacuation of Earth” Ashtar Spiritual Forum, http://www.ashtarcommandcrew.net/forum/topics/channelling-ascension-and#ixzz1QWWocZp2, accessed: 6/27/11, SL)
There has been SO much channelled about this. First back in the '80's and '90's, and it has resurfaced now. I have already said quite a bit about this in terms of the fact that Project Uplift (i.e. uplifting people from Earth en masse during major Earth changes) was abandoned by the Council and Ashtar Command because the decision had to be unanimous (by consensus) andbecause of the perceived trauma sucha thing would cause the people uplifted, problems adjusting to life on Motherships - not to mention the logistical nightmare - but here is another thing to think about. Many of the channellings say that the Ashtar Command is going to "save us" when things get tough on the planet. Save us from what?Our own Ascension process? Why is it anyone else's responsibility to help us survive and thrive in our own environment?With changes that we helped to create? The channellings say that the Ashtar Command will remove people "in the blink of an eye". I wonder if people realize that if there was an evacuation like that, people could be seperated from family, partner, friends - maybe even their children? That is because they could not take people who had not given their permission and had no awareness of their existence.It is against Universal Law. How would you feel if you left the planet, and your loved ones had to stay? What if you had them taken forcibly against their will? How would they respond and feel?. What would the suddenly changed energy and environment do to them?. You cannot expose people to things like that if they are not ready for it and open to the experience. They have to give their permission, otherwise it is just abduction! No one in the Ashtar Command fleet or associated fleets is willing to do that. If you remove people physically from their home world suddenly, they suffer from many spiritual, mental and emotional adjustment problems (even sickness) which can be fatal. You have altered gravitational fields to deal with - not to mention a massive vibration shift. Human bodies have to gradually adjust to increases in vibration, or they will overload and burn out. You are talking about bodies that have been 3-D for a long time suddenly becoming something else without going through the steps in between. Also, human bodies at this time are not equipped to travel in space craft which move much, much faster than the speed of light.Or ships which travel between dimensions. In order for members of the Ashtar Command to artificially alter human bodies so that they can cope with these things (as many of the channellings claim), it would violate another law. Well, a couple of them actually. One is the law of non-interference. They cannot do anything that extremely alters the course of another being or civilization's natural evolution. It has major repercussions! Look at what happened when the Atlanteans did that, for example. They experimented and tampered with natural laws and life forms to the point where their either destroyed it, or created creatures which could not possibly survive - let alone thrive.