"According to the classical sense, a person holds that his own views (religious, moral or other) 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 someone has a duty to tolerate a different view (religious, moral or other), not in the sense of thinking the other views are right, 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.
On the classical view, one tolerates persons, not their ideas. Consistent with this view, a person judges his opponent’s views to be wrong and dedicates himself to doing everything morally appropriate to counteract those views, such as using argument and persuasion. The modern version of tolerance claims that one should not even judge that the other person’s viewpoint is wrong."
Therefore all viewpoints are to be accepted no matter how foolish they are. Would any sensible businessman accept the modern version of tolerance and run with an idea that would ruin his operation? One would hope that he points out the folly of the idea, but does so with “gentleness and respect” to the person who puts forth the suggestion.
In the real world, we tolerate every person not every idea. In the dream world, replete with one-ended sticks; we tolerate all ideas. Which world do you want to live in?
