On the forum, a netizen posted several PP photos of a man and a woman passionately kissing at a scenic spot in the city. For this weathering event, the onlookers' views are naturally different. Fortunately, everyone has maintained a little rationality. No one came forward and scolded loudly, arguing that the police should take the initiative to intervene. No one sang an ode to freedom, and no one shouted that love was innocent.
Whoever these two porn men and women are. What is the relationship between the two? Just kiss at random regardless of time, place and environment. In mainland cities with relatively simple folk customs, it is obviously unsightly. It is reasonable for tourists to look askance.
Supporters believe that people should be kind and the public should tolerate their maverick behavior. At first glance, this statement does make sense. If you think about it carefully, you will find that this sentence deliberately confuses the difference between tolerance and connivance.
The doctrine of the mean is the essence of Confucianism. In a word: "Everything is measured, it is too late." Chinese vocabulary is rich because China culture is extensive and profound. In order to express the meaning more carefully, appropriately and accurately, words that seem to be synonymous and have similar meanings have been created, and the context and semantic communication applicable in practical applications have undergone subtle changes.
It is difficult for Chinese learners who are used to either/or and often go to extremes to appreciate the wisdom of this difference. Because they don't know how to grasp the degree of this index, this index can only be understood beyond words, looks unfathomable and can never be quantified.
In such a weathering event, every bystander makes his own judgment on the basis of his own inner standards. Passerby A and Passerby B are different to some extent. This difference is the root of the colorful beauty of human nature in this world. Confirming the rationality of this difference and respecting this difference is the original intention of the instrument "tolerance" that will be sacrificed in high profile every time it is questioned.
The standard of degree varies from person to person, and the conflict of ideas is inevitable. Thus, based on the understanding of most members of society, morality and law came into being. One of the tasks of morality and law is to adjust this individual difference. Tolerance is an individual's discretion within the limits of morality and law. There is no limit to the degree, and tolerance is synonymous with connivance.
Tolerance is a virtue. It is downright selfish to flaunt one's tolerance and ignore moral and legal restrictions. Indulge and encourage others to break the law and lose their morality, which is not only an infringement on the interests of public groups, but also irresponsible to others.
It's really a trivial matter to send K in public. With the progress of urban civilization, it may one day degenerate into a compulsory course for the younger generation. Before the flood, as a pioneer, it is natural to be bold and bear the moral hazard brought about by it.
A hundred years ago, a good woman didn't marry two husbands, which was the minimum concept of chastity. Nowadays, in major TV dating programs, a group of leftover women who have had N husbands (prospective husbands) can actually shout out the slogan "Want a house, a car and love" without shame. Even conservatives with rigid thinking and traditional ideas, such as us, have never jumped out and shouted to "soak them in a pig cage" except for occasional disdain. Doing so today is called tolerance, and doing so a hundred years ago was called connivance.
Judging, criticizing or supporting this weathering event is the freedom of every bystander within the scope of moral discourse. Rational criticism is not necessarily intolerance, and emphasizing tolerance is not necessarily true connivance.
Rational criticism and moderate punishment are also a kind of love, which makes the audience understand that "everything is measured." Blind encouragement and disguised cover-up are also a kind of incitement, in order to speed up the audience's departure from the normal track of moderate behavior.
There is nothing wrong with supporting controversial moral behavior, and pretending to be tolerant is shameless.