Why do we still put people in prison?

[dystopian]

Well if Norway has more convicted prisoners than their prisons can accommodate - especially bearing in mind the sparse population, relatively speaking - so has to farm them out to various other European prisons, then all I can say is that Norway doesn't have enough prisons of its own. I also note that Bastoy has what is essentially an experimental regime, and there are indeed some more conventional prisons, therefore isn't typical.

It has more conventional prisons; conventional by its own measure.

That said, I find it hilarious that you were just trying to argue that the reason Norway's sending us their prisoners is because their liberal prisons cause more recidivism; but are now scrambling to explain the exact opposite.

I must admit to being confused why the recidivism numbers are so low though; maybe there's a code whereby recidivists are automatically sent to the conventional prisons precisely because they have reoffended? It's so bizarre that I can't help but feel there's a nuance here which you're keeping from me to support your standpoint.

Of course you do. Just like you couldn't believe that the Netherlands had such drastically falling crime rates that we're taking on foreign prisoners leading you to desperately come up with some explanation for it that fits your worldview (and failing to do so succesfully I might add) , you can't believe the basic facts about Norway either. It couldn't possibly be the case that your political ideology blinds you to the truth... it must be the case that I'm just keeping some nuance from you! That has to be it! Otherwise the liberals might be right!

 

[dystopian]

The 'craving for freedom' is subjective, and as to that, what I've highlighted above reminds me of what a repeat offender ex-con who was interviewed for a Panorama programme said about prisons; he said quite spontaneously (I paraphrase) that notwithstanding the mind-set that they won't be caught, many of them still believe a life of criminality is worth taking because (as I keep saying) they simply don't fear the consequences of the extremely short term.

You're forgetting the fact that they would still find it worth the risk even if prisons had the worst conditions imaginable. In fact, that's exactly what we see in countries that DO have horrendous prison conditions. It simply does not deter crime no matter how horrible you make the conditions.

 

[Cerberus]

The 'craving for freedom' is subjective, and as to that, what I've highlighted above reminds me of what a repeat offender ex-con who was interviewed for a Panorama programme said about prisons; he said quite spontaneously (I paraphrase) that notwithstanding the mind-set that they won't be caught, many of them still believe a life of criminality is worth taking because (as I keep saying) they simply don't fear the consequences of the extremely short term.

You're forgetting the fact that they would still find it worth the risk even if prisons had the worst conditions imaginable. In fact, that's exactly what we see in countries that DO have horrendous prison conditions. It simply does not deter crime no matter how horrible you make the conditions.

I hear what you say, but it does beg the question How much worse would it be if the prisons conditions were less horrible? See what I mean - we can all speculate and hypothesize to validate our respective points of view?

Incidentally, what, as a liberal, would you do with the psychopatic 'mad dog' perpetrator of this outrage?

"Findon crash driver stabbed to death: Hunt for 'dangerous' killer"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-33562606

Scum like this are all around us.

 

[DrZoidberg]

You're forgetting the fact that they would still find it worth the risk even if prisons had the worst conditions imaginable. In fact, that's exactly what we see in countries that DO have horrendous prison conditions. It simply does not deter crime no matter how horrible you make the conditions.

I hear what you say, but it does beg the question How much worse would it be if the prisons conditions were less horrible? See what I mean - we can all speculate and hypothesize to validate our respective points of view?

Incidentally, what, as a liberal, would you do with the psychopatic 'mad dog' perpetrator of this outrage?

"Findon crash driver stabbed to death: Hunt for 'dangerous' killer"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-33562606

Scum like this are all around us.

It's broken logic as it doesn't take into account human psychology. Just ask yourself how often you comply when somebody, you don't like nor agree with, tells you what to do? It's normal to downplay one's own guilt and fault. Everybody does it. Criminals are no different. So virtually none of the sentenced criminals will think they actually deserve the punishment. What would a normal human do under those circumstances? They want to commit that crime even more, just to spite the system. Yes, childish. But most people are. And this is exactly what happens, as shown by the statistics. Harsh punishment is pointless and it doesn't deter shit. Nobody would ever commit any crime if they thought they might get caught.

As for you example. Most criminals are not like that. I think violent criminals are a special category of criminals and shouldn't be mixed with other criminals. Which they aren't. They have special prisons. But even so. Most violent criminals just screwed up once. They're not habitually violent. Treating them as if they constantly are dangerous is silly IMHO. Everybody can have a bad day. "he who is free from sin cast the first stone".. or something.

http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004339

Which begs the question why the non-violent prisoners are kept in prisons at all? About a third of all incarcerated are in for narcotics. Completely idiotic to keep those in. Criminalisation of drugs have a reverse effect. Drug addiction falls rapidly after a country decriminalises drugs. For the simple reason that addicts now can seek rehabilitation without risking going to jail. Just an idiotic set of laws. A drug addict needs help with their addictive behaviour. The last thing they need is being punished. Especially not put in a place where they have too much time on their hands to think. They need real help. And as we all should have realised by now a drugs legal status has zero impact on it's availability and use. Since the "war on drugs" happened the availability of drugs wasn't even dented. It is a non-factor.

Under public order (15%) we find stuff like prostitution. Another idiotic category of crime. Or homeless people caught sleeping in public places. Where else are they going to sleep? Why are either of those crimes at all?

20% is damage to or theft of property. Also pointless to keep them in jail. This group is perfect for alternative punishments that might actually deter them from committing crimes again. All we know is that prisons don't. Rather, they're schools where criminals learn how to steal stuff even more without getting caught. Real dumb putting those in prison together.

 

[dystopian]

You're forgetting the fact that they would still find it worth the risk even if prisons had the worst conditions imaginable. In fact, that's exactly what we see in countries that DO have horrendous prison conditions. It simply does not deter crime no matter how horrible you make the conditions.

I hear what you say, but it does beg the question How much worse would it be if the prisons conditions were less horrible? See what I mean - we can all speculate and hypothesize to validate our respective points of view?

First, given your choice to colorize that section of my post I'm going to assume you think that said statement is just speculation. It's not. As others have pointed out, it's well supported by pretty much every bit of research ever done on the subject. Harsh punishment simply does not deter crime; that is not speculation, that's fact.

Secondly, it really wouldn't work to argue that crime rates in these countries with horrible prison conditions might be even worse if prison conditions were better, since we've already established in previous posts that countries with prisons where the conditions *are* less horrible, also have correspondingly lower crime rates.

Incidentally, what, as a liberal, would you do with the psychopatic 'mad dog' perpetrator of this outrage?

"Findon crash driver stabbed to death: Hunt for 'dangerous' killer"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-33562606

Scum like this are all around us.

This is just another attempt appeal to emotions again, as conservatives often attempt in the mistaken belief that others will adopt the conservative's "LOOK AT THIS! DANGER! FEAR! ALERT! ALERT!" response that we see so often. The problem with this approach, of course, is that those towards the liberal end of the spectrum simply do not react to such stimuli the way a conservative would. The fact that there's people like that in the article around doesn't frighten me. It ranks very low on the list of things I feel I should be concerned about. The chances of getting randomly stabbed to death are so low as to be negligible for me. Subsequently, I do not have the emotional reaction to such stories as you clearly do. You see a story like this, and your conservative brain subsconsciously demands actions to eliminate the threat; even though there's no credible threat to you or anyone you know; and/or demands the imposition of simple structure and order, for instance, by 'erasing' the aberration that messed it up in the first place, even though doing so after the fact is superfluous at best.

Whereas I see a story like this, and see no reason to change anything about either my routine or that of society at large. We already have adequate means to deal with problems like this, and attempts to perfect those means tend to result in violation of basic human rights, societal privacy and civil liberties, and so on. Not worth it just so that scaredy-cat conservatives can sleep better at night knowing that the risk is lower than before; even if it's only a difference of 0.01% at the expense of your rights.

 

[Cerberus]

I hear what you say, but it does beg the question How much worse would it be if the prisons conditions were less horrible? See what I mean - we can all speculate and hypothesize to validate our respective points of view?

First, given your choice to colorize that section of my post I'm going to assume you think that said statement is just speculation. It's not. As others have pointed out, it's well supported by pretty much every bit of research ever done on the subject. Harsh punishment simply does not deter crime; that is not speculation, that's fact.

Secondly, it really wouldn't work to argue that crime rates in these countries with horrible prison conditions might be even worse if prison conditions were better, since we've already established in previous posts that countries with prisons where the conditions *are* less horrible, also have correspondingly lower crime rates.

Incidentally, what, as a liberal, would you do with the psychopatic 'mad dog' perpetrator of this outrage?

"Findon crash driver stabbed to death: Hunt for 'dangerous' killer"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-33562606

Scum like this are all around us.

This is just another attempt appeal to emotions again, as conservatives often attempt in the mistaken belief that others will adopt the conservative's "LOOK AT THIS! DANGER! FEAR! ALERT! ALERT!" response that we see so often. The problem with this approach, of course, is that those towards the liberal end of the spectrum simply do not react to such stimuli the way a conservative would. The fact that there's people like that in the article around doesn't frighten me. It ranks very low on the list of things I feel I should be concerned about. The chances of getting randomly stabbed to death are so low as to be negligible for me. Subsequently, I do not have the emotional reaction to such stories as you clearly do. You see a story like this, and your conservative brain subsconsciously demands actions to eliminate the threat; even though there's no credible threat to you or anyone you know; and/or demands the imposition of simple structure and order, for instance, by 'erasing' the aberration that messed it up in the first place, even though doing so after the fact is superfluous at best.

Whereas I see a story like this, and see no reason to change anything about either my routine or that of society at large. We already have adequate means to deal with problems like this, and attempts to perfect those means tend to result in violation of basic human rights, societal privacy and civil liberties, and so on. Not worth it just so that scaredy-cat conservatives can sleep better at night knowing that the risk is lower than before; even if it's only a difference of 0.01% at the expense of your rights.

As to it's well supported by pretty much every bit of research ever done on the subject.

That's because most of it is carried out by vested-interest outfits like the Howard League for Penal Reform, but you can link me to one which is more impartially subjective if you like. I doubt that you will though! As to what I've highlighted in red: in all probability that's precisely what the victim would have said had you asked him prior to the 'random events which led to his death'. It seems that liberals like yourself always need to receive a personal (note that word because it's significant) object lesson before they'll understand the flaws in their logical then shut up and leave things of moment to pragmatic and worldly-wise individuals - like me!

I can't reason with you - I'm afraid me and liberals are like oil and water (it must be my 'emotion' and urge to 'spreading alarm and despondency'), so there's no point in continuing this discussion. You may have the last word if you wish but I won't be read it. Have a good day.

 

[dystopian]

That's because most of it is carried out by vested-interest outfits like the Howard League for Penal Reform, but you can link me to one which is more impartially subjective if you like.

Oh right, of course... it's all a liberal conspiracy!

http://tpj.sagepub.com/content/91/3_suppl/48S.short
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1145988
http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/Deterrence Briefing .pdf
http://www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/gendreau.pdf
http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/researc.../2013/10/08/prison-time-served-and-recidivism
http://www.nber.org/papers/w15602.pdf

I found all of these studies concluding that longer/harsher sentences have a negative effect on recividism with just a few minutes of googling. They don´t appear to be politically biased, but I´m sure you´d like to be able to dismiss them as part of the liberal conspiracy.

It seems that liberals like yourself always need to receive a personal (note that word because it's significant) object lesson before they'll understand the flaws in their logical

If I were a conservative, I might interpret that as a threat.

I know this is hard to understand for you, but the truth is my position wouldn´t change at all if I had anything happen to me personally since it wouldn´t actually change any of the facts upon which my present arguments are based. Sure, I´d probably experience a period of anger, fear, hatred, or what have you... but that is a temporary distortion of mental functioning that passes. I could get hurt by a freak accident with lightning tomorrow, and I might for a while get paranoid about avoiding open skies and telling everyone they should do the same. But then I´d realize I´d be acting like a fucking moron because the chances of getting hit by lightning are so astronomical that it´s really not worth avoiding the outdoors for... the fact that I did in fact get hit by lightning doesn´t change the odds, and it doesn´t make my behavior any less unreasonable. Replace ´lightning´ with ´randomly getting stabbed´, and the same thing applies. If I were to become a victim, it would do nothing to demonstrate any flaw in my logic... it would just mean I got unlucky.

then shut up and leave things of moment to pragmatic and worldly-wise individuals - like me!

Hahaha... oh wait you´re actually serious. Let me laugh even harder.

I can't reason with you - I'm afraid me and liberals are like oil and water (it must be my 'emotion' and urge to 'spreading alarm and despondency'), so there's no point in continuing this discussion. You may have the last word if you wish but I won't be read it. Have a good day.

Okay, let´s see... so in your post you,

1. Imply that the only reason research disagrees with you is because of a liberal conspiracy.
2. ask for links to impartial research.
3. express disbelief that I´ll actually link you any.
4. imply that I need to be the victim of a crime before I´ll see reason.
5. smugly claim yourself to be pragmatic and wise (pro-tip, people who are actually wise don´t loudly claim themselves to be) and I´ll leave all the important things to people like you the moment I get a boo-boo from the boogyman.
6. claim you can´t reason with me, even though the fact that I´m basing my position on things like statistics, research, and arguments instead of feelings demonstrates that one can in fact reason with me. If one were to use actual reason, that is. Btw, since we´ve been talking at least tangentially about science in this thread, I should point that oil and water do in fact mix. You just have to create an emulsion, which you can ironically do by shaking and mixing. People should really stop using that expression.
7. Complain about being told you´re emotional by passive aggressively (which is an emotional response!) mocking being told you´re emotional.
8. Proclaim that there´s no point in continuing the discussion... instead of simply not continuing it, thereby making everything up to point 8 completely superfluous and unneccessary.

It must be terribly embarassing for you to be this self-defeating.

 

[Kharakov]

 Statistical_correlations_of_criminal_behaviour
World Prison Populations BBC News

 

[fromderinside]

 Statistical_correlations_of_criminal_behaviour
World Prison Populations BBC News

dystopian ​is that you?

 

[dystopian]

 Statistical_correlations_of_criminal_behaviour
World Prison Populations BBC News

dystopian ​is that you?

It would be news to me.

 

[Kharakov]

dystopian ​is that you?

It would be news to me.

I wonder what he meant by that.

 

[Cerberus]

Oh right, of course... it's all a liberal conspiracy!

http://tpj.sagepub.com/content/91/3_suppl/48S.short
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1145988
http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/Deterrence Briefing .pdf
http://www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/gendreau.pdf
http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/researc.../2013/10/08/prison-time-served-and-recidivism
http://www.nber.org/papers/w15602.pdf

I found all of these studies concluding that longer/harsher sentences have a negative effect on recividism with just a few minutes of googling. They don´t appear to be politically biased, but I´m sure you´d like to be able to dismiss them as part of the liberal conspiracy.

As virtuously reliable sources, those links mean diddly-squat to me; they might be as radical as The Howard League for Prison Reform, ie self-serving, jobs-for-life liberal extremists.

It seems that liberals like yourself always need to receive a personal (note that word because it's significant) object lesson before they'll understand the flaws in their logical.

If I were a conservative, I might interpret that as a threat.

What, you think I'm threatening you when I've no idea who you are nor where you are on the planet?

I know this is hard to understand for you, but the truth is my position wouldn´t change at all if I had anything happen to me personally since it wouldn´t actually change any of the facts upon which my present arguments are based. Sure, I´d probably experience a period of anger, fear, hatred, or what have you... but that is a temporary distortion of mental functioning that passes. I could get hurt by a freak accident with lightning tomorrow, and I might for a while get paranoid about avoiding open skies and telling everyone they should do the same. But then I´d realize I´d be acting like a fucking moron because the chances of getting hit by lightning are so astronomical that it´s really not worth avoiding the outdoors for... the fact that I did in fact get hit by lightning doesn´t change the odds, and it doesn´t make my behavior any less unreasonable. Replace ´lightning´ with ´randomly getting stabbed´, and the same thing applies. If I were to become a victim, it would do nothing to demonstrate any flaw in my logic... it would just mean I got unlucky.

No, but you'd stay clear of open spaces, and not tarry under trees though, wouldn't you?

then shut up and leave things of moment to pragmatic and worldly-wise individuals - like me!

Hahaha... oh wait you´re actually serious. Let me laugh even harder.

Yes, I was serious.

Okay, let´s see... so in your post you,

1. Imply that the only reason research disagrees with you is because of a liberal conspiracy.
2. ask for links to impartial research.
3. express disbelief that I´ll actually link you any.
4. imply that I need to be the victim of a crime before I´ll see reason.
5. smugly claim yourself to be pragmatic and wise (pro-tip, people who are actually wise don´t loudly claim themselves to be) and I´ll leave all the important things to people like you the moment I get a boo-boo from the boogyman.
6. claim you can´t reason with me, even though the fact that I´m basing my position on things like statistics, research, and arguments instead of feelings demonstrates that one can in fact reason with me. If one were to use actual reason, that is. Btw, since we´ve been talking at least tangentially about science in this thread, I should point that oil and water do in fact mix. You just have to create an emulsion, which you can ironically do by shaking and mixing. People should really stop using that expression.
7. Complain about being told you´re emotional by passive aggressively (which is an emotional response!) mocking being told you´re emotional.
8. Proclaim that there´s no point in continuing the discussion... instead of simply not continuing it, thereby making everything up to point 8 completely superfluous and unneccessary.

It must be terribly embarassing for you to be this self-defeating.

It's funny that all my encounters with liberals end in acrimony, and yet liberals are supposed to be tolerant.

. Go away now please, dystopian, you're starting to bore me.

 

[bilby]

As virtuously reliable sources, those links mean diddly-squat to me; they might be as radical as The Howard League for Prison Reform, ie self-serving, jobs-for-life liberal extremists.

It seems that liberals like yourself always need to receive a personal (note that word because it's significant) object lesson before they'll understand the flaws in their logical.

If I were a conservative, I might interpret that as a threat.

What, you think I'm threatening you when I've no idea who you are nor where you are on the planet?

I know this is hard to understand for you, but the truth is my position wouldn´t change at all if I had anything happen to me personally since it wouldn´t actually change any of the facts upon which my present arguments are based. Sure, I´d probably experience a period of anger, fear, hatred, or what have you... but that is a temporary distortion of mental functioning that passes. I could get hurt by a freak accident with lightning tomorrow, and I might for a while get paranoid about avoiding open skies and telling everyone they should do the same. But then I´d realize I´d be acting like a fucking moron because the chances of getting hit by lightning are so astronomical that it´s really not worth avoiding the outdoors for... the fact that I did in fact get hit by lightning doesn´t change the odds, and it doesn´t make my behavior any less unreasonable. Replace ´lightning´ with ´randomly getting stabbed´, and the same thing applies. If I were to become a victim, it would do nothing to demonstrate any flaw in my logic... it would just mean I got unlucky.

No, but you'd stay clear of open spaces, and not tarry under trees though, wouldn't you?

Er... He just very clearly said he would NOT have that reaction.

then shut up and leave things of moment to pragmatic and worldly-wise individuals - like me!

Hahaha... oh wait you´re actually serious. Let me laugh even harder.

Yes, I was serious.

Okay, let´s see... so in your post you,

1. Imply that the only reason research disagrees with you is because of a liberal conspiracy.
2. ask for links to impartial research.
3. express disbelief that I´ll actually link you any.
4. imply that I need to be the victim of a crime before I´ll see reason.
5. smugly claim yourself to be pragmatic and wise (pro-tip, people who are actually wise don´t loudly claim themselves to be) and I´ll leave all the important things to people like you the moment I get a boo-boo from the boogyman.
6. claim you can´t reason with me, even though the fact that I´m basing my position on things like statistics, research, and arguments instead of feelings demonstrates that one can in fact reason with me. If one were to use actual reason, that is. Btw, since we´ve been talking at least tangentially about science in this thread, I should point that oil and water do in fact mix. You just have to create an emulsion, which you can ironically do by shaking and mixing. People should really stop using that expression.
7. Complain about being told you´re emotional by passive aggressively (which is an emotional response!) mocking being told you´re emotional.
8. Proclaim that there´s no point in continuing the discussion... instead of simply not continuing it, thereby making everything up to point 8 completely superfluous and unneccessary.

It must be terribly embarassing for you to be this self-defeating.

It's funny that all my encounters with liberals end in acrimony, and yet liberals are supposed to be tolerant.

. Go away now please, dystopian, you're starting to bore me.

If all of your encounters with liberals end in acrimony, then perhaps it is not the liberals who are being intolerant?

 

[Cerberus]

If all of your encounters with liberals end in acrimony, then perhaps it is not the liberals who are being intolerant?

When two individuals have a difference of opinion then that's 'intolerance', isn't it? It's just that liberals are generally known to be open to persuasion rather than dogmatic.

 

[dystopian]

As virtuously reliable sources, those links mean diddly-squat to me; they might be as radical as The Howard League for Prison Reform, ie self-serving, jobs-for-life liberal extremists.

Of course. How convenient for you, this inability to accept any source that disagrees with you for fear that it *might* be a liberal source. Never mind the fact that A) if you were genuinely worried about this you could just do some basic research on the researchers of each of these studies to determine whether there's any bias or not, and B) whether or not the research was done by liberal or conservatives would not necessarily have any relevance on the results.

But doing research so that you can determine whether other research is useful to you or not is apparently too much work.

What, you think I'm threatening you when I've no idea who you are nor where you are on the planet?

I wasn't aware that the word "if" would be so difficult a word to understand for some people.

No, but you'd stay clear of open spaces, and not tarry under trees though, wouldn't you?

Not in the middle of a thunderstorm, I suppose. That is, assuming I could actually find a large enough open space in this country where that'd be relevant, or find a tree to tarry under which is isolated and/or tall enough to be a likely lightning target... both of which are big ifs. But then, it's not like I've been hit by lightning already and that's why I'd be avoiding those things... so actually being hit by lightning wouldn't change my behavior at all.

Yes, I was serious.

Go away now please, dystopian, you're starting to bore me.

Obviously I'm not, seeing as how you've decided to continue responding to me despite the fact you quite explicitly claimed you wouldn't do so anymore. Either you're going to have to admit that I'm interesting enough to have you go back on your word, or you're going to have to admit that you're prone to making arbitrary and inconsistent statements. Although I suppose that to admit to the former would also tacitly mean admitting to the latter.

 

[dystopian]

If all of your encounters with liberals end in acrimony, then perhaps it is not the liberals who are being intolerant?

When two individuals have a difference of opinion then that's 'intolerance', isn't it?

No, it's not. I thought you lived in England? One would expect someone who lives in England to have a reasonable grasp of the English language.

 

[Cerberus]

When two individuals have a difference of opinion then that's 'intolerance', isn't it?

No, it's not. I thought you lived in England? One would expect someone who lives in England to have a reasonable grasp of the English language.

'intolerance' Unwilling to tolerate differences.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/intolerant

It's the very first definition; it's in the sense of 'two individuals who have a difference of opinion'! No need to thank me for putting you right.

 

[DrZoidberg]

No, it's not. I thought you lived in England? One would expect someone who lives in England to have a reasonable grasp of the English language.

'intolerance' Unwilling to tolerate differences.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/intolerant

It's the very first definition; it's in the sense of 'two individuals who have a difference of opinion'! No need to thank me for putting you right.

Ehe, what? You're wrong. The link you posted proved it. Please explain yourself?

 

[dystopian]

No, it's not. I thought you lived in England? One would expect someone who lives in England to have a reasonable grasp of the English language.

'intolerance' Unwilling to tolerate differences.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/intolerant

It's the very first definition; it's in the sense of 'two individuals who have a difference of opinion'! No need to thank me for putting you right.

Impressive! You DO know how to google things!

However, your reading skills appear somewhat lacking. Nowhere does the phrase 'two individuals who have a difference of opinion' appear on that page, not in the first definition or in any other; nor is it even implied anywhere. What the first definition ACTUALLY says is: "Unwilling to tolerate differences in opinions, practices, or beliefs, especially religious beliefs."

Note that an unwillingness to tolerate differences in opinion is quite distinct from simply *having* differences of opinion.

Doesn't the apparent fact that a non-native speaker understands your language better than you do bother you?

 

[Cerberus]

When I wrote this: 'When two individuals have a difference of opinion then that's 'intolerance', isn't it?', you'll note the inverted commas; they were intended to suggest that if two individuals are in disagreement then one of them is obviously, repeat obviously intolerant of the other one's opinion?? It was a nuance, in other words.