Is there a difference between being purist and being intolerant?

[Sparkly]

Is being purist, or non-compromising, necessarily being intolerant of people who believe differently?

If not, what's the difference between them? Or if the answer is "sometimes," when does purity become intolerance?

[babylonsister]

1. Whoa, great question. I think purist crosses the line to intolerant

when the dialogue gets ugly, cynical, or condescending. A purist will make a point, usually a valid one, and move on.

[aquart]

2. A purist is by definition intolerant of all deemed "impure."

The answer is never "sometimes." The only question is whether you and/or your society accept "impurity" or prefer "intolerance." At which point you find other names to describe it.

[Klukie]

3. What a great question...

I can't wait to hear the responses. I have to think on it awhile before I can offer my own.

[spirit of wine]

4. When either one of these terms becomes intermingled

with "faith-based" then they take on a whole other hue.

[RaleighNCDUer]

5. That depends entirely upon perspective.

If you agree, you're a purist. If you disagree, you're an intolerant asshole.

And, of course, purist can be said (or written) with an inflection which makes it evident that it is meant as intolerant asshole. For instance, many on the left are 'accused' of being purists (i.e., intolerant assholes) because we don't want to put up with compromising with the fascists.

[H2O Man]

6. Gandhi was a purist. n/t

[Bluebear]

7. For a purist, often there can be by definition no tolerance.

If someone is a purist on gay rights, for instance, they will not look the other way when their campaign hires anti-gay talent to sing on their behalf. :)

If you are a purist on being against the death penalty, you cannot tolerate anyone using the death penalty as punishment. There are some ethical absolutes which you cannot compromise or make accommodations for.

[datasuspect]

8. does dichotomous thought disallow the possibility of nuanced thought

or subtlety?

in terms of purist thoughts related to wine (for example), i would not tolerate boone's farm if i had developed a palate for finer wines.

in terms of ideological purity, i would not tolerate extreme reactionary thought or the creep of fascism if i were a liberal or leftist of any type.

is this type of intolerance a bad thing? not really, if you're are going to define anything, believe in anything, or stand for something.

some ideas are just noxious in principle and should never be tolerated: state-enforced infanticide or ritualized child rape.

no one would cast asparagus against anyone for taking a definite contrary stand against anything so odious.

now, as a leftist, is there any requirement that compels me to tolerate a conservative's ideas? a neocon's?

nope. i can understand it, i can appreciate that they think the way they do, but tolerate it? no. because right wing ideologies are antithetical to the ideas i agree with.

i'm not sure if your question, as phrased, is particularly illuminating. was there a specific point that you wanted to make?

[patrice]

9. A purist loves a thing for what it is. The thing itself is absolutely primary.

One who is intolerant is somewhat less a purist, because another's difference is more important than the thing the intolerant claims to love.

To a purist, as long as the object of her love exists independently from whatever differences that might polute it, that fact is more important than the hypothetical pollution, e.g. I can tolerate lots of bad poetry, because I know that it does not affect true poetry.