Paradox of tolerance

Author: TheRealNihilist

Posts

Total: 42
#31
Death23
Death23's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 618
3
4
7
Death23's avatar
Death23
3
4
7
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I don't think that type of tolerance has political relevance.
I think it has with the 2nd amendment. Whether people accept it or not free speech is not protected in the US in all cases. Just like tolerance it can only go so far.

I guess somewhat. It doesn't seem very difficult to rassle to me though; You know, to the point where there's a paradox. We generally tolerate things so long as they don't case problems. Once there are problems then it becomes a policy issue where a cost/benefits pros/cons analysis is done. Or, at least that's how I look at things.
#32
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Tolerance is subjective. There will always be something you become intolerant towards, then maybe become intolerant in your handling of it, or do it in a tolerant way. But i agree with that first quote... it is better to expose intolerant ideas and see where it lands among everyone. If it's really stupid, the intolerant person will be hit back and maybe get a revelation or maybe go crazy and bite society back.  I like to think of myself as a pretty tolerant person, but even that that extent (actively trying to be tolerant) i have been confronted with situations where it is just darn hard to maintain that tolerance. It's just all human nature since we are all but evolved monkeys.  
Topic's author
#33
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Death23
I guess somewhat. It doesn't seem very difficult to rassle to me though; You know, to the point where there's a paradox. We generally tolerate things so long as they don't case problems. Once there are problems then it becomes a policy issue where a cost/benefits pros/cons analysis is done. Or, at least that's how I look at things.
Yeah the application is different. People are not tolerant of things which lead to harm they would like to prevent. 

Topic's author
#34
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Outplayz
But i agree with that first quote... it is better to expose intolerant ideas and see where it lands among everyone
Where did you get this from? 
#35
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I construed that meaning from the first quote from Karl Popper from your link. I sorta like that whole quote. 

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 the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. 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. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.
Topic's author
#36
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Outplayz
I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise.
I don't think some people can be checked through rational argument. Whether it be their basis whether they know it or not is feelings driven. It is okay to be feelings driven but in a conversation which is supposed to rational then I don't think it is okay. Mainly because their ability to change or put up a reasonable defense will be crap. 

I don't really know about philosophers all that much which is why I stuck to people.  

#37
triangle.128k
triangle.128k's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 502
3
2
6
triangle.128k's avatar
triangle.128k
3
2
6
-->
@TheRealNihilist
The ideas don't matter more so the structure.

A rule is antithetical to freedom. That is pretty much it. 
Give me an example or else your point is moot
Topic's author
#38
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@triangle.128k
Give me an example or else your point is moot
My point is not moot. This coming from a person who believes in God who can't give real-life examples of his existence. 

Do you want to backpedal calling my point moot when your entire life is based on something actually moot? 

Or I'll wait for a real-life example of God. This was ironic of course because I don't think you are capable of meeting that condition since you the people who you follow can't meet it.
#39
triangle.128k
triangle.128k's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 502
3
2
6
triangle.128k's avatar
triangle.128k
3
2
6
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Really? That's your defense? To dodge the question at hand and resort to starting a debate about religious beliefs (or lack there of)?
Topic's author
#40
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@triangle.128k
Really? That's your defense? To dodge the question at hand and resort to starting a debate about religious beliefs (or lack there of)?
Literally described my point without explaining what is wrong with it and expecting me to carry on as if you wanted to have a conversation?

#41
triangle.128k
triangle.128k's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 502
3
2
6
triangle.128k's avatar
triangle.128k
3
2
6
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I asked for an example of the paradox of tolerance and you failed to give it. Your response instead is to incite a religious argument.

Abstractions are pointless if they are irrelevant
Topic's author
#42
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@triangle.128k
I asked for an example of the paradox of tolerance and you failed to give it. Your response instead is to incite a religious argument.
Religious argument? I literally pointed the hypocrisy of a person calling a structure moot when their entire life is based on something moot. Does it not read on your profile page: Religion "Orthodoxy" or maybe you don't understand your worldview is publicly available. 

Abstractions are pointless if they are irrelevant
Irrelevant depends on the what you deem to be so. To you I am guessing if it doesn't further the cause of my belief it isn't useful. I can literally point to abstractions then you would just say it is irrelevant. Do explain what is irrelevant or you know add in even more phrases requiring further clarification.