I don't have 2 separate definitions Mustad--I made a further point of clarifying the same issue. If you think that the definition of tolerance is the same today as it was 15 years ago, then you aren't paying attention.The end result , or logical conclusion to the new tolerance is that there aren't any standards--everyones personal views are the standard--which is an oxymoron. A standard is a guage for ones personal opinion, to determine if it is true or false. If the standard becomes that all views are equal, you don't have any room left for right or wrong, true or false.
I understand the 'audience' very well, and have been addressing this issue for quite sometime.The concept of hunting WAS understood 25 years ago and has been lost with the shift in our value system. You or I didn't need to worry about what others thought about a displayed deer 23 years ago when I started hunting--and I lived in Atlanata at that time. It was common practice to see a buck draped over the hood ofa Jeep or the trunk of a car, and the only negative connotation it had was that it wasn't wise to allow the heat of the engine to 'cook' the deer enroute.THe publics views have and are still changing constantly. The advent of the extreme animal rights activists have been born out of a confused and displaced view about the comparison of the life of an animal in comparison to a human being. Most that are involved don't see any significant difference in the 2. That is why they are upset. They see little difference in taking the life of an animal and taking the life of a person. Some extermists see no difference. I had an emplyee like this once. He got infuriated when hunting was mentioned for this very reason. I find that very troubling--especially when the life of an unborn child is treated like they are no more than a lump of skin to be cut away.Poll the average person who is opposed to hunting, and ask them ,at the same time their views on abortion, and it all of a sudden becomes an issue of rights. The hunter has no right, but the woman has a right to end her pregnancy, if she so chooses. Just a little hypocritical and schizophrenic.
If you honestly believe this is a new issue that is just now in the process of becoming exposed, then you must be personally becoming aware now, because this is not something that has taken place in the last 2 years or less, but has been gradually changing for sometime now.The shifting was and is first in the value systems, trickling down and influencing people's behavior. You act a certain way because you first think or believe a certain way.People are becoming more upset as time goes by, due to the changing shift in values, and it is working its way out into the public arena each year. When did it become a crime to wear a certain religious symbol or to mention God's name in a public setting or to have the audacity to speak up concerning deviant behavior? Was that yesterday, or the day before, or before that? No, it has been a gradual eroding process--over the course of many years, and it is beginning to snowball. The answer is not in candy coating or compromise. It is in making a stand and being able to communicate this stand effectively, along with the allowance of those that don't agree.
FYI--my displaying my recent deer was, as I said, something I had not done in recent history, being sensitive to the fact that there are those that could be offended. I honestly expected a great deal more flack than just one 20 year old girl becoming upset, and was surprised at the positive reactions.I may or may not do it again, but I don't have any qualms with those that do, and have no reservations in doing it again.It needs to be presented for what it is--hunting is not something to be ashamed of or an issue that needs to be skirted around. When someone reacts, we should be able to graciously , yet with conviction communicate and defend our heritage--without going about it in a milk toast manner, apologizing for someone else's misperceptions.