If nothing else, in order to forgive, we have to know what we are forgiving.

We, a society of thieves, cannot tolerate stealing from each other.

We do not tolerate failure, Number Three. You know the penalty.

We will never tolerate terrorism or allow Afghan territory to be used for such acts.

But this is exactly what we blindly tolerate in the whole of evidence based medicine.

Recently, no less than William F Buckley has argued that nicotine addiction cannot be dismissed as free choice.

Why, then, should we tolerate such fallacious arguments when debating the costliest public policy decision in the history of mankind?

But when inadmissible norms become tolerated in silence, even the strongest juridical system becomes destabilized.

The government thus made an implicit deal with its citizens political dissent would not be tolerated, but, in exchange, the state would guarantee economic growth.

Nobody expects it to be infallible. But neither should we tolerate its attempts to scare policy makers rather than inform them.

We have an obligation to build a world based on tolerance and mutual respect but let us never be tolerant of fanaticism, fascism or dictatorship. All these still plague the world today.

We should never tolerate the permanent membership of Japan, which refuses to liquidate its past crimes against other countries, distorting its history of aggression and driving the regional situation towards confrontation.

From any perspective ethical, economic, environmental, or in terms of food security we simply cannot tolerate the annual wastage of 1.3 billion tons of food.

We must not tolerate a system of nuclear apartheid, in which it is considered legitimate for some states to possess nuclear arms but patently unacceptable for others to seek to acquire them.

Destroy that and you destroy the hallmarks of liberal order. As the great political philosopher Karl Popper argued, the only thing that we should not tolerate in an open society is intolerance.

We would never accept medical practitioners advising ultra expensive and ineffective aspirins for gangrene because the cost of aspirin outweighs the cost of losing the leg. Why, then, should we tolerate such fallacious arguments when debating the costliest public policy decision in the history of mankind?