6 ms·

Would you advocate tolerating, say, parents neglecting their children in various ways that we think are harmful to development? Or would you instead try to spin

Would you advocate tolerating, say, parents neglecting their children in various ways that we think are harmful to development? Or would you instead try to spin those forms of child neglect as acts of intolerance?

FussyZeus 7y ago
We have laws that address child neglect. I'm not sure why so many in this thread think if we forbid intolerant speech that we're also in the same motion casting the entire book of laws into the trash...? It's a very odd segue.
- HBKXNCUO 7y ago
  People who advocate for laws that address child neglect are using intolerant speech, are they not? They are literally saying that we should be intolerant toward certain choices made by other people. Should such speech be forbidden?
  - FussyZeus 7y ago
    > People who advocate for laws that address child neglect are using intolerant speech, are they not? No. Because not feeding your children is not speech.
    - HBKXNCUO 7y ago
      >Because not feeding your children is not speech. For the sake of argument, I will grant that. That's not what I asked though. Why is saying "we should not tolerate X" not intolerant speech, when it is literal advocacy of intolerance in the form of speech? If we agree with you that all intolerant speech except for speech which is intolerant of intolerance should be prohibited, why should such speech not be prohibited, when X != "intolerant speech"?
      - FussyZeus 7y ago
        > Why is saying "we should not tolerate X" not intolerant speech, when it is literal advocacy of intolerance in the form of speech? Because like any other law in any society, context is taken into account. You're deliberately twisting what would normally be said in this situation, something like: "Parents must feed their children" Into a ridiculous alike of: "We should not tolerate parents not feeding their children" Which is not only how literally not a single person alive speaks, but is also a transparent attempt to make a ridiculous example that wouldn't happen to discredit the idea of banning intolerant speech. The dictionary defines intolerance as: 1 : unable or unwilling to endure, which is applicable to the sort of example you're putting forward, which is as a side-note, an excellent example of a tendency of right-leaning people to put forward arguments that, while logically sound, in any context look and are ridiculous. I know this, because I spent a long time doing it myself. Now, being that we're two smart people having a discussion, we're going to use the second definition, which is clearly what is being discussed and is relevant to the question: 2a: unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious matters, b: unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights RE: Bigotry, which is what is behind so many movements in this vein. Speech from these movements can and should be suppressed under the law, citing that the things they are saying are intolerant, because their speech is putting forth the argument that a certain group of whatever kind of people should be denied some kinds of expression or rights in the public space, and it's doing so, going back to my original comment, for no reason or logic, but to indulge their bigotry. Questions?
        HBKXNCUO 7y ago
        >Questions? Yes, are you willing to grant or share social, political, or professional rights with everyone on this earth (except perhaps bigots)? In other words, do you think it's intolerant for a country to have any immigration system other than open borders (except that bigots don't have to be allowed in) or any exclusive political benefits for its citizens, such as the right to vote? Because if so, you've just declared the majority of people in this country to be bigots, who in your view should not be tolerated according to the second definition, i.e. you don't want to grant them equal freedoms or share social, political, or professional rights with them.

FussyZeus 7y ago

We have laws that address child neglect. I'm not sure why so many in this thread think if we forbid intolerant speech that we're also in the same motion casting the entire book of laws into the trash...? It's a very odd segue.

HBKXNCUO 7y ago
People who advocate for laws that address child neglect are using intolerant speech, are they not? They are literally saying that we should be intolerant toward certain choices made by other people. Should such speech be forbidden?
- FussyZeus 7y ago
  > People who advocate for laws that address child neglect are using intolerant speech, are they not? No. Because not feeding your children is not speech.
  - HBKXNCUO 7y ago
    >Because not feeding your children is not speech. For the sake of argument, I will grant that. That's not what I asked though. Why is saying "we should not tolerate X" not intolerant speech, when it is literal advocacy of intolerance in the form of speech? If we agree with you that all intolerant speech except for speech which is intolerant of intolerance should be prohibited, why should such speech not be prohibited, when X != "intolerant speech"?
    - FussyZeus 7y ago
      > Why is saying "we should not tolerate X" not intolerant speech, when it is literal advocacy of intolerance in the form of speech? Because like any other law in any society, context is taken into account. You're deliberately twisting what would normally be said in this situation, something like: "Parents must feed their children" Into a ridiculous alike of: "We should not tolerate parents not feeding their children" Which is not only how literally not a single person alive speaks, but is also a transparent attempt to make a ridiculous example that wouldn't happen to discredit the idea of banning intolerant speech. The dictionary defines intolerance as: 1 : unable or unwilling to endure, which is applicable to the sort of example you're putting forward, which is as a side-note, an excellent example of a tendency of right-leaning people to put forward arguments that, while logically sound, in any context look and are ridiculous. I know this, because I spent a long time doing it myself. Now, being that we're two smart people having a discussion, we're going to use the second definition, which is clearly what is being discussed and is relevant to the question: 2a: unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious matters, b: unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights RE: Bigotry, which is what is behind so many movements in this vein. Speech from these movements can and should be suppressed under the law, citing that the things they are saying are intolerant, because their speech is putting forth the argument that a certain group of whatever kind of people should be denied some kinds of expression or rights in the public space, and it's doing so, going back to my original comment, for no reason or logic, but to indulge their bigotry. Questions?
      - HBKXNCUO 7y ago
        >Questions? Yes, are you willing to grant or share social, political, or professional rights with everyone on this earth (except perhaps bigots)? In other words, do you think it's intolerant for a country to have any immigration system other than open borders (except that bigots don't have to be allowed in) or any exclusive political benefits for its citizens, such as the right to vote? Because if so, you've just declared the majority of people in this country to be bigots, who in your view should not be tolerated according to the second definition, i.e. you don't want to grant them equal freedoms or share social, political, or professional rights with them.