Brasas: I don't want this to be too personal mate.
In terms of defining tolerance, consider this as a simpler answer than the one I gave you. You asked "So you still define tolerance as everyone must talk to each other even on things they don't agree on. Am I right?"
I told you no. Because of the implication about imposition carried by the "must" you used. I assume you chose the words carefully and wanted the must to be there. But let's take the must away.
Tolerance is everyone talking to each other even on the things they don't agree on.
Does that really seem not to fit? To me that fits. It's not all of tolerance, but it is part of it. Ignoring someone can be tolerance, especially as an alternative to punching them - but ignoring does not define tolerance.
What do you think?
PS: Some years ago a girl called Jane was in love with me. I did not reciprocate because I liked someone else called Judy. I did nothing to Jane. I did nothing with Jane. I ignored Jane. Jane was hurt by that.
Inaction can cause harm. Causing harm may not imply responsibility. I am not responsible for Jane hurting. But I caused it. And yet, I did nothing.
See what I mean? It's not illogical. It's logical. Also tragic, but that's a separate point.
So you agree that while ignoring is not tolerance, it can be a subset of tolerance?
Your analogy regarding Jane has a flaw. It is not your inaction that cause Jane harm. It is Jane herself that cause her harm.
If I jump from a 20 story building, can I say the ground kill me? No I kill myself.
Can I say you who is standing near me kill me by your inaction to stop me? No I kill myself.
Can I say the workers that build the building kill me? No I kill myself.
But I get it, when something goes wrong, humans like to blame on something other then themselves.