Without Normative Behavior, There can be no Tolerance

Ha ha ha ha, No I did not anticipate this line of attack. Nevertheless, My argument and my thesis both survive the challenge. 1 === Definitions === I began the definitions section with normative behavior, Which included the "human" constraint on behaviors that you cite. Each subsequent definition reuses the term "behavior. " It is obvious that all these reuses are similarly constrained. My definition of tolerance has a second implication of the human constraint: reference to "associated opinions. " Inasmuch as "opinion" is a function unique to humans, This reflects a further human basis in my definition of tolerance at least. 2 === Dog Bite === You say that you achieve tolerance without normative behavior in your dog example because the dog is not human. In keeping with your obtuse reading of the definitions, You neither have normative behavior nor tolerance, Because they are both human-constrained. You also made an effort to avoid normative behavior thru a non-reasoning justification for calling the dog bite BAD. You employed a thoughtless prejudgment that "inbuilt physiological response to pain" will always result in a label of BAD. This is not clear to me, As there are countless examples of pain that are labeled as GOOD or NEUTRAL. Even with regard to dog bites, There are certainly some people who approve of dog bites (for example to ward off attackers). I counter further that I never required "reason" in forming the norms. Since when are people's moral judgments based on reason, Logic, Or thinking at all? The key is not how much thought is put into the labeling of behaviors. The key is that they have been labeled. You labeled the dog bite as BAD, So you have established normative (albeit non-human) behavior. Therefore, My argument survives the challenge. 3 === Necessary but not Sufficient === A corollary to my thesis is that normative behavior is necessary but not sufficient to achieve tolerance. Even if you establish normative behavior, It does not guarantee tolerance. There are really 3 steps required to achieve tolerance: --- 3a --- normative behavior must be established --- 3b --- a person must be confronted with a behavior labeled BAD within the norms --- 3c --- the person must "endure" (yes, This kind of tolerance is another function unique to humans) If 3a is skipped, There can be no tolerance. If step 3b is replaced by a behavior that is labeled GOOD or NEUTRAL, There can be no tolerance. If step 3c is skipped, There is no tolerance, Because the BAD behavior was not endured. Only when all three are in place, Can tolerance been achieved. 4 === Dog Bite Revisited === Let us see the results when we reexamine your scenario without your obtuse reading (leaving the human constraint behind), And with the corollary. --- 4a --- you have established normative behavior, In which dog bites are BAD --- 4b --- you were the recipient of a dog bite --- 4c --- you pet, Calmed, And taught the dog (sounds like enduring well to me) Congratulations, You achieved tolerance! But at the cost of a normative evaluation. Therefore, My thesis also survives the challenge. 5 === A Special Case === It is worth noting a special case characterized by labeling every behavior as NUETRAL. Many people think they are exceptionally tolerant when they adopt this Special Case, Because they call it a rejection of normative behavior. But they are NOT tolerant at all for two simple reasons. --- 5a --- In this Special Case, Step 3b can never occur, Because there are no BAD behaviors in it. --- 5b --- Let us review the characteristics of "normative behavior. " The definition requires labels of GOOD and BAD; labels of NUETRAL are merely allowed. In other words, An all-encompassing evaluation of NEUTRAL does not really qualify as normative behavior. Therefore, Neither step 3a, 3b, Nor 3c can be achieved in this Special Case. This proves my thesis (again) in reverse.