In the ERCP, Tolerance Cannot be a Substitute for Lacking Compatibility
Many people put a lot of emphasis on tolerance as a method to cope with persons, who differ in some attribute, that they would not accept or want for themselves. It is a way to cope with the world around, with whom I have to deal as a way of surviving between predominantly irrational and selfish people.
In a relationship, tolerance is required, whenever there is not enough compatibility to value each other as persons by respecting and valuing mutually all attributes. When incompatible people get infatuated with each other's body, they attempt the shared denial of incompatibility by tolerance. They same is the case, if people are more driven by an urge to procreate than by any wish to be mentally close to each other. If a man chooses a woman for her health to bear fit offspring and the woman chooses the man as a provider, then their mutual very different roles are already a ditch, that keeps them so far apart, that differences are insignificant enough to be covered with tolerance.
This is the tolerance paradigm for people, who are mutually utilities for the joint urge to procreate. Tolerance enables incompatible partners to use each other, even though they have nothing in common.
The ERCP is a paradigm of compatibility. If people want intellectual intimacy, they need to be compatible. It is irrational to want the closeness of compatibility but choose someone with unacceptable attributes. An ERCP relationship can only be created, when there is so much compatibility, that tolerance is obsolete. As long as tolerance is needed, it would not be the ERCP.
Not all differences cause incompatibilities. Simple differences in tastes or needs as for example, one partner prefers to eat cheese and the other apples is an information to be shared and taken into account in the organisation of life, it is nothing to be tolerated.
Tolerance as an insufficient substitute for compatibility is about everything, where the attribute is an evaluation, a judgement, a conscious choice, especially when the attribute is part of the own identity and the self-esteem.
It is my identity to be a childfree atheist, because enough rationality is hard-wired into my brain.
I have to consider myself with this identity in contact with others from two different perspectives.
From the intersubjective perspective, my brain is one variety, those, whose brain is driven by instinctivity and gullibility have a different variety. I have the right to avoid such people, but not to interfere, discriminate, insult them. This is the tolerance of distance and indifference.
From the subjective perspective, I have the right to my own evaluation and judgement, that it is better to be rational and childfree than to be an irrational religious breeder. I have the right to guide my own personal life by my own judgment.
When a religious breeder contacts me, then the tolerance of distance requires to be polite. It is rational to keep away from such a man. But it is irrational to apply the socially required tolerance and consider his evaluation of religion and breeding as equally valid as mine.
If it is my identity to be proudly rational and therefore considering believing and breeding as irrational, then I might feel compassion or condescension for religious breeders, but never respect.
There cannot rationally be any tolerance of accepting a religious breeder as an equal.
I have the right to disrespect and depreciate a religious breeder, as long as I do not show it to him.
Tolerance leads to a contradiction, when my own evaluation tells me, that one attitude is better than another, while tolerance requires to declare both as equally valid. In my own life, I follow my own judgement. I cannot consider the same person with contempt as a religious believer and with respect as a partner.
I am looking for a compatible partner, where there would be no need for tolerance. I am looking for a partner, who shares the same values and the same evaluations.
Of course, outside the closeness of a relationship, I am not against other forms of tolerance, that are based on egalitarianism as a general guideline. Everybody is entitled to the same right to a decent life, it is the tolerance of mercy, compassion and benevolence instead of discrimination for those, who have had bad luck, like for example disabled people.