4 ms·
> need to oppose those who would destroy their freedoms Of course no-one can argue against it if you re-state it like that. But the paradox goes much further:
by deogeo 8y ago
> need to oppose those who would destroy their freedoms
Of course no-one can argue against it if you re-state it like that. But the paradox goes much further: "Popper asserted that to allow freedom of speech to those who would use it to eliminate the very principle upon which they rely is paradoxical."
- hannasanarion 8y agoAnd this means that free society cannot be established because....?
- deogeo 8y agoTolerant, not free. The terms are not interchangeable. The paradox implies it because if the ideas of tolerance are so fragile, that even in a majority tolerant society, intolerant ideas present such a threat as to consider sacrificing even free speech, then how could they have ever come to dominate in the first place?