3 ms·

> The actual problem is that “tolerance” is undefined in that statement. Disagreed. You can be pedantic about semantics and doublethink your way out of anythin

> The actual problem is that “tolerance” is undefined in that statement. Disagreed. You can be pedantic about semantics and doublethink your way out of anything, but that's not productive discourse, so I'll dismiss that out of turn. > If you make it concrete the “paradox” either disappears or is obvious. Strong Disagree. If you make it concrete, then you introduce a catch-22 by forcing others to conform to your perspective before a discussion can be begin. If there's any paradox at all in this, it's here. > It is just a problem of lazy definitions and not defining your terms. Lets start with tolerance then, because your example (Say we define it as: “I will not initiate violence.”) provided above is WAY off base: > Tolerance: the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with You can concretely define your terms all you want, doesn't mean people will agree, use, or perceive your use of them in that way.

Veserv 3y ago
You have completely missed the point. The definition of “tolerance” you quoted uses the word “tolerate”. What does “tolerating a behavior” mean? “Tolerating a behavior” means taking or not taking some action in response to a behavior. The crux of the “paradox” is that the condition and action are wholly undefined resulting in a nebulous mushy concept battle. As soon as you define, even vaguely, the conditions and actions you wish to use as “tolerating”, the “paradox” disappears. The examples I provided are there to illustrate the concept using a relatively simple condition/action model. I am not imposing a definition beyond defining what constitutes a “concrete” description. I literally could not care less what you choose. You can choose the definition that you want that is infinitely favorable to your perspective and the paradox will still disappear. I do not even need to agree with your definition. The mere act of defining causes the paradox to disappear (or be trivially inconsistent) in your own axiomatic model as far as I can tell. The paradox of tolerance is just the paradox of being too lazy to define your words so you can move the goalposts.
- Zandikar 3y ago
  > You have completely missed the point. Incorrect. I'm strongly disagreeing with the core point of what you're trying to say. > I literally could not care less what you choose. Therein lies the problem. Your definitions are meaningless if you have no concern (aka tolerance) for how they'll be received.
  - Veserv 3y ago
    My point is the logic is inherently self contradictory regardless of the definition. To use a analogy. It is like I am saying: (A or TRUE) == TRUE. And someone is quibbling about the value of A. It literally does not matter. Pick any value. The sheer force of the rules of logic make the value of A irrelevant. That is analogous to my assertion, though obviously much stronger due to its basis in the underpinnings of propositional logic. If you want to disprove my statement then all you need to do is unilaterally propose literally any condition/action which results in a non-trivial paradox. I do not know how to make my argument any clearer. It is up to you if you want to think of a proper counter example or not, but I have said everything I care to say. Have a good day.

Veserv 3y ago

You have completely missed the point. The definition of “tolerance” you quoted uses the word “tolerate”. What does “tolerating a behavior” mean? “Tolerating a behavior” means taking or not taking some action in response to a behavior. The crux of the “paradox” is that the condition and action are wholly undefined resulting in a nebulous mushy concept battle. As soon as you define, even vaguely, the conditions and actions you wish to use as “tolerating”, the “paradox” disappears. The examples I provided are there to illustrate the concept using a relatively simple condition/action model. I am not imposing a definition beyond defining what constitutes a “concrete” description. I literally could not care less what you choose. You can choose the definition that you want that is infinitely favorable to your perspective and the paradox will still disappear. I do not even need to agree with your definition. The mere act of defining causes the paradox to disappear (or be trivially inconsistent) in your own axiomatic model as far as I can tell. The paradox of tolerance is just the paradox of being too lazy to define your words so you can move the goalposts.

Zandikar 3y ago
> You have completely missed the point. Incorrect. I'm strongly disagreeing with the core point of what you're trying to say. > I literally could not care less what you choose. Therein lies the problem. Your definitions are meaningless if you have no concern (aka tolerance) for how they'll be received.
- Veserv 3y ago
  My point is the logic is inherently self contradictory regardless of the definition. To use a analogy. It is like I am saying: (A or TRUE) == TRUE. And someone is quibbling about the value of A. It literally does not matter. Pick any value. The sheer force of the rules of logic make the value of A irrelevant. That is analogous to my assertion, though obviously much stronger due to its basis in the underpinnings of propositional logic. If you want to disprove my statement then all you need to do is unilaterally propose literally any condition/action which results in a non-trivial paradox. I do not know how to make my argument any clearer. It is up to you if you want to think of a proper counter example or not, but I have said everything I care to say. Have a good day.