I find no honor in being tolerant of intolerable behaviors. There are a lot of people who hold different beliefs than I; as long as they don't impose on me, I will not impose on them. If their thinking inconveniences me, annoys me, intrudes upon me, I will state, in definitive terms, what I am thinking. If they don't like it, that is none of my business. If they become aggressive, it becomes my business.
Many people who think and act in combative, dominant, aggressive ways annoy the heck out me, just as people who think and act in dependent, passive, submissive, subordinate ways annoy me. I am grown up enough and can be thoughtful, kind, friendly, and respectful of them as a person and know they have learned how to be aggressive or helpless. I can tolerate that.
If they learned to be dependent, they can learn how to be self-sufficient. Even completely paralyzed people can develop a certain amount of independence, even if, by necessity, they cannot be physically or mentally independent. When a learned dependent person use their dependency to manipulate and exploit others, I decline, politely, the opportunity to reinforce their dependence and offer ways to be self-sufficient. When a learned-aggressive person becomes dominating, I express my opinion and decline an opportunity to reinforce their aggressiveness.
It is not my business if they wont hear or use my information. If they want to be learned aggressive or learned dependent I do not want them in my life and find a way to leave them in their aggressiveness or helplessness.
Old man Webster, who defines tolerance as: "1.: willingness to accept feelings, habits, or beliefs that are different from your own" is not my definition of tolerance. Some thinking and behaviors exist as intolerable. There is no honor in being tolerant of intolerable thinking and behavior.
In the case of different values, there is an easy way past that. Let us take abortion as an example; it carries a lot of energy behind the belief, pro or con. I am pro-woman's choice. I approach the issue from that stance. Others who express anti-choice have a right to their opinion, and I make known that I disagree. If they become aggressive, I just terminate the discussion.
If they respond with rationale for why they believe as they do, I respond with my rationale.
A Roman Catholic nun I worked with for years is a case in point. She and I were on opposite sides of the issue and we worked very hard together in preventing teenage pregnancy. Neither one of us gave up our positions, we reframed the position into a way we could work together to achieve common goals. Together, we gave options to pregnant teenagers, we both, together, taught sex education, we each offered options and left the decision to the girl, where it belonged. We taught sex education for teen boys and for couples. Our basic motto, "Every child is a wanted child!" and honored the girl's decision.
In my opinion, the only one who can make the decision to abort or not is the mother. The father has no say in that matter, and if he wanted to be involved with her pregnancy we coached both of them. Another wedge issue was using contraception. The nun had her values and I had mine. We expressed each of our views to the teen boy and girl. It was none of our business what they decided. However, when people made sex decision based on good solid facts and differences of values, they had a foundation upon which to build.
Difference of values is a difficult hurdle, especially when sex is concerned. Learning how to take on that challenge is good training for taking on other decisions.