Forgoing vitriolic condemnations of a type of behavior is not the same as being “accepting” of that behavior.

That's actually, pretty close to the textbook definition of accepting.

Accepting often parses to "putting up with" better than it parses to "liking, enjoying, or supporting."

The second definiton at Dictionary.com is:

2. to agree or consent to; accede to: to accept a treaty; to accept an apology.

This comes admittedly after to take or recieve with approval something offered, the examples being an invitation or a proposal.

When I think "consent to" or "accede to" I don't imagine joy and happiness to accept.

Accepting often parses to "putting up with"

not for me

Cobra, I see that you have voided your agreement not to vote on my claims.

LD,

In general, I don't, but it was on the front claims page.

If you really don't want people to disagree with your claims, you shouldn't make them on jyte. You should get a blog and not permit reader comments.

My agreement was with you because of your unusual interpretation of "disagree". Obviously, you can renege if that is what you have chosen to do.

I'm still making my mind up on this, but I am leaning toward disagree. One is not condemning the activity. One is letting people engage in the activity. That is acceptance. It may or may not include viewing that activity as good, but one is allowing others to engage in it.

I still feel that acceptance is a spectrum, not a binary, which makes it difficult for me to vote on this. I think this describes the lowest level of acceptance, but one can be more accepting of something that just withholding vitriolic condemnations.

"I still feel that acceptance is a spectrum, not a binary."

It could be a number line.

acceptance vs. rejection. both binary(+/-), and a spectrum.