3 ms·
This claim to logic or scientific reasoning in the face of not tolerating intolerance seems flawed and, to me, does not serve as a meaningful replacement for th
by throwaway156503 7y ago
This claim to logic or scientific reasoning in the face of not tolerating intolerance seems flawed and, to me, does not serve as a meaningful replacement for the subject of morality:
Imagine you have a child, who is not yours, screaming in your ear at the nearby supermarket. You do not tolerate it. You are intolerant of it.
At face value, with the paradox of tolerance in the form of "society must be intolerant of intolerance," you would need to hold to the position that society should not be tolerant of your intolerance to children screaming in your ear.
You'd need to accept that it's acceptable for children to scream in your ear.
- pritambaral 7y agoYour example is flawed for the following reason: The child's right to scream ends where my right to peacefully exist in a public space begins. The child's act of screaming directly in my ear clearly violates my right and is thus intolerant of it.
- FussyZeus 7y agoI would say this example is also flawed because children scream in public all the time. It's just... reality. Kids scream sometimes for any number of good or not good reasons and making the parent feel even shittier than they already do about disturbing everyone around them isn't going to solve anything.
- pritambaral 7y ago> I would say this example is also flawed because ... 1. I do not present any "example". I present only a fact within the parent's example. 2. None of the reasons you cite in the continuation invalidate my claims. "Accept the reality" does not erase anyone's rights. > ... and making the parent feel even shittier than they already do ... I do not see where I said anything remotely related to making any child's parent feel anything
- FussyZeus 7y agoI think you misunderstood, I was agreeing with you and expanding on your point. Not arguing.
- throwaway156503 7y agoHmm, yes, you're right. Thanks for the example. Perhaps further arguments could be made about what constitutes peace among individuals and what infringes on those definitions. I believe we see scenarios today in which one's definition of peace infringes on another's.