0
0

[–] escapefromredditbay ago 

eh, kind of a double edged sword on that one. whether a thing is to be tolerated, can never really be answered by a direct yes or no, becuase that thing might be nuaced, so saying yes or no might either kill a good thing, or allow a bad thing

[–] [deleted] ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

0
3

[–] zxcvbnm4762 [S] 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Arthur Kenneth Chesterton, not Gilbert Keith Chesterton

2
2

[–] toats 2 points 2 points (+4|-2) ago 

Isn't that just a fancy way of saying that the things I cannot tolerate don't deserve to be tolerated?

0
1

[–] omegletrollz 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

No, it says that some things should be tolerated and others not - it makes no attempt to trace subjective lines or determine what those are, that is all coming from your head.

0
7

[–] zxcvbnm4762 [S] 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

In my view, he means that tolerance is not a universal good. Everyone has things that they will not tolerate

2
-1

[–] GoofyGrape 2 points -1 points (+1|-2) ago 

In my view, he means that tolerance is not a universal inherently good.

It depends on what is being tolerated. My apologies if my edit seems too tomato/tomatoe-y, I just think it is a closer interpretation of the quote. Good quote, BTW.