Wiki - The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually ceased or destroyed by the intolerant. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly self-contradictory idea that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance.

  • LemmysMum@lemmy.world
    2·
    1 year ago

    You didn’t answer the questions. Two questions, two answers.

    If you want to keep being intellectually disingenuous and dodging like you play dodgeball, I’ll just accept you can’t without accepting that I was able to determine you were making a disingenuous attempt to make me say something that could be construed as ‘censoring all religion’.

    But my logic is solid and the questions remain posed. You showed your hand that the answer was Nazi’s referring to Judaism so I’ll finish the job for you.

    Is their determination objectively verifiably true or the projection of a feeling?

    The projection of a feeling.

    Does this behaviour harm them because of their own intolerance of this behaviour alone?

    Yes.

    Therefore their harm is self inflicted through bigotry. And you agree with me.

    • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
      1·
      1 year ago

      I have not accepted any claim that harm can ever be considered objective. We are not at all in agreement, but we have narrowed down the point of contention.

      Even certain behaviors that out modern society does call for censorship of - such as calling for violence to a person or group - are not “objectively” harmful, but subject to public opinion. Death threats would generally be considered worthy of censorship, but death threats to Osama Bin Laden in the wake of 9/11 didn’t seem harmful. Are death threats and objective harm to be censored, or are they subjective, as I have just demonstrated?

      So again, I would like some examples of what you mean by “objective” harm, because I currently cannot conceive of any behavior that could be unequivocally, objectively harmful.

      • LemmysMum@lemmy.world
        1·
        1 year ago

        I can’t imagine what it must be like to feel so in contention with someone who has all the right answers when you ask the right questions. I feel sorry for you.

        If you’d like to reform your diatribe into concise and cohesive questions I’ll gladly continue to answer them.

        It’s funny, kind of meta, you have this preconceived notion that I’m some bigoted racist born of the harm you feel when you attempt to interpret what I’m saying.

        You’re self harming with your own preconceived notions that aren’t congruent with reality just like the Nazis in our discussed example.

        • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
          1·
          1 year ago

          Please provide an example of “objective harm”. You referenced this concept. You have clearly demonstrated that this concept is essential to understanding the model you have described, but I do not understand what you mean by that statement. Please provide an example to aid my comprehension.

            • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
              1·
              1 year ago

              It is, indeed, a broad question.

              Is it “physical violence” when a Nazi shoots a Jew?

              Is it “physical violence” when a Jew shoots a Nazi?

              What if the Jew in question were David Berkowitz, and the Nazi in question were Oskar Schindler?

                  • LemmysMum@lemmy.world
                    1·
                    1 year ago

                    Yes. Depends on the context.

                    Objective
                    /əbˈdʒɛktɪv/
                    adjective

                    (of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

                    So,remove your feelings and provide the facts I’m requesting so we can get to the objective logical endpoint.