151–160 of 266 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>the decision will be made through rational argument and what do you do when both sides are at an impasse because they have different axioms?
then the axioms themselves can be argued until a conclusion is reached, otherwise debate can be suspended. the underlying axiom here is that debate can be had, and that people can be convinced through reason.
I take it you haven't seen Twitter (or Facebook, or Reddit, or even SE lately)? Or perhaps you're referring only to in person interactions here, but I've still never witnessed this outside of a STEM setting (and even then, not always).
This gets posted constantly and every time it gets easier and easier to find white nationalist propaganda in the comments. Always glad to see whatever ideological bender the administrators of this site are on, providing a platform for hate speech is a price they’re willing to pay for it. Edit: I’m talking specifically about someone all but quoting the 14 words and lamenting at how society is intolerant of his views.
2) The comment you're referring to was 1 out of 120, and it got flagged to death.
What is it with communists and perpetual victim complex? You have full backing of the media, academia and the rest of the establishment. Cheer up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a facile response, because it works for everybody. Everybody intolerant thinks of themselves as a fundamentally tolerant person, whose hand has regrettably been forced by the unforgivable actions of the enemy tribe.
> Everybody intolerant thinks of themselves as a fundamentally tolerant person, whose hand has regrettably been forced by the unforgivable actions of the enemy tribe. This is 100% not true.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Everybody intolerant thinks of themselves as a fundamentally tolerant person, whose hand has regrettably been forced by the unforgivable actions of the enemy tribe. This is 100% not true.
You’ve made an assertion that it is not true - in fact, a very strong assertion. Do you have any argument to back that up?
Further, I know people who consider intolerance as a core part of human nature, who would be prefixing their arguments with "everybody knows they are fundamentally intolerant". People who think tolerance is a fake position that people lie to themselves about purely to avoid violence or "ugly truths".
The existence of people like this isn't a position to be taken that needs backing by argument.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that if one were to draw the line between tolerant and intolerant ideologies, that line shouldn't be drawn based on the content of the ideology but rather how that ideology spreads. Specifically, based on this quote > 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,…
1. That line would still be hard to draw 2. I know many ideologies that most people would consider "intolerant" but would fall under the "tolerant" umbrella because there's a rationalization for its intolerance. In fact, any ideology, as violent as it might be, can be rationalized. While it is also technically possible to discover the underlying, hidden 'intolerance' of an ideology, society at large is not capable of…
For example, the KKK. What would be the solution to solve that, if not for society to take an active stance against it? Should we let them continue on their merry way because it's impossible to determine intolerance and morality is complicated?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Selfishness is devilry, and devils make Truth out as falsehood and spin falsehood as true.
This isn't a matter of selfishness, but groupishness .
Unless I misunderstand what you're pointing to?
> Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. > In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress th…
The suppression of thought comes about not because of the lack of 'rationality' but from the lack of agreement on fundamental dogmas. For instance how are going to argue with a Christian or Islamic fundamentalist for whom the very existence of others is a prickly aspect; this being served entirely from the scripture ?