3 ms·
"happily prevent gay marriage by force or much worse." This seems to neatly capture the problem. If you can paint the other side as irrational, it excuses almo
by Digory 8y ago
"happily prevent gay marriage by force or much worse."
This seems to neatly capture the problem. If you can paint the other side as irrational, it excuses almost any pre-emptive bad behavior.
Believing something is wrong does not mean the adherents are out to kill people or use force against them. The adherents also think gluttony is an evil, yet candy bars and refined carbs remain freely available.
And so, at that level of careless prejudice, it does not justify the use of "force (political or otherwise)" to "stop them." The President might as well announce that Karl Popper supports the idea of a Muslim ban.
- jonahx 8y ago> This seems to neatly capture the problem. If you can paint the other side as irrational, it excuses almost any pre-emptive bad behavior. I'd argue that this response neatly captures the flip side of the problem. To quote my other post: --- Both things are true: - Intolerant zealots (religious or otherwise) can weaponize tolerance against itself. - Bigots can weaponize the paradox of tolerance for purely hateful aims. You must contend with both of these realities. There's no avoiding judgment and practical considerations. --- So yes, you are right that "believing something is wrong does not mean the adherents are out to kill people or use force against them." But sometimes it does mean that. You don't get to take the high road until you address what to do in those situations.
- cgrealy 8y ago>Believing something is wrong does not mean the adherents are out to kill people or use force against them. Most of human history disagrees, especially in the case of gay rights.