131–140 of 227 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even if those religious rules mean the animal has to be treated more humanely than the 'secular' systems of approval?
Absolutely. It's purely about the involvement of religion that puts me off. If there was a "Catholic church approved cheese" I'd refuse to buy that too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The West is currently in the process of committing suicide. This one of those lines that, when it appears in an article, you know there's an error somewhere in the preceding thousand lines of argument, as surely as if it were a proof that 1 == 0. > an intolerant minority can control and destroy democracy I'm more worried about intolerant minorities of privileged people who are currently in power destroying democrac…
The argument might be junk, but if you reject it solely because it points toward a conclusion that contradicts your pre-existing biases... I think you've left the path of wisdom.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a bit dismissive. Goedel was correct about making the US a dictatorship. The fact that the amending clause allows unlimited amendment (particularly of the amending clause itself) means a series of malicious amendments could irrevocably change the constitution to that of a dictatorship and forbid returning to a democracy. Now maybe people would just give up on the constitution at that point, but in terms of the…
I've always thought it was more likely over article 2 section 3, which allows the President to adjourn both houses of Congress indefinitely under certain circumstances. If one was expecting to be impeached, for example, a little procedural hiccup on the timetable of adjournment would be sufficient to suspend legislative business altogether.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> “Should a society that has elected to be tolerant be intolerant about intolerance?” This is something philosophy has actually done well to detail. It's the paradox of tolerance, and I think the answer absolutely has to be yes. For those looking for easy surface level gotcha's, that seems like a problem. Dig deeper, and it's logically consistent with the belief of tolerance, for if one allows intolerance, their tole…
The problem that opens up is the definition of intolerance. Are direct claims against the rights of others to believe something intolerant? Yes, they probably are. What about speaking against groups of people (in a broad sense, calling out some perceived problem with their behavior)? Well, sometimes that's intolerant, sometimes something needs to be said (maybe that group is the Inner Party and they're taking too muc…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. He is meaning that there should be intolera…
Pretty much every intolerance worth opposing harnesses very violent elements in it's base while maintaining a veneer of civility. Look at religious motivated systemic violence against LGBT people in the US. Our current executive has waved a rainbow flag a time or two, but our vice president has personally funded things that look like camps and penned legislation that let's police ignore and LGBT person being beaten o…
Also, what do you mean by camps? Forced orientation changing?
Paradox of Tolerance : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance > The paradox of tolerance was described by Karl Popper in 1945. The paradox states that if a society is tolerant without limit, their ability to be tolerant will eventually be seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Popper came to the seemingly paradoxical conclusion that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant o…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pretty much every intolerance worth opposing harnesses very violent elements in it's base while maintaining a veneer of civility. Look at religious motivated systemic violence against LGBT people in the US. Our current executive has waved a rainbow flag a time or two, but our vice president has personally funded things that look like camps and penned legislation that let's police ignore and LGBT person being beaten o…
That's terrible! I can't seem to find a source of the vice president being connected to legislation allowing police to ignore LGBT people being beaten. Can you give me the link to one? Also, what do you mean by camps? Forced orientation changing?
https://www.snopes.com/mike-pence-supported-gay-conversion-t...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> “Should a society that has elected to be tolerant be intolerant about intolerance?” This is something philosophy has actually done well to detail. It's the paradox of tolerance, and I think the answer absolutely has to be yes. For those looking for easy surface level gotcha's, that seems like a problem. Dig deeper, and it's logically consistent with the belief of tolerance, for if one allows intolerance, their tole…
It definitely makes sense -- any worldview (such as one that elevates tolerance as a virtue) has to build in safeguards that protect it against existential threats, or else it won't be a worldview that persists into the future for very long. The issue I'm grappling with that the solution to the "paradox of tolerance" (that it is OK to be intolerant of intolerance) is that it is good at defending against erosion of to…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's terrible! I can't seem to find a source of the vice president being connected to legislation allowing police to ignore LGBT people being beaten. Can you give me the link to one? Also, what do you mean by camps? Forced orientation changing?
> While running for Congress, Indiana governor Mike Pence called for state funding for "institutions" working to enable people to "change their sexual behavior." https://www.snopes.com/mike-pence-supported-gay-conversion-t...
Mike Pence once supported the use of federal funding to treat people "seeking to change their sexual behavior."