Paradox of tolerance

Author: TheRealNihilist ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 42
  • TheRealNihilist
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    Debates: 44
    Forum posts: 4,888
    4
    8
    11
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    TheRealNihilist
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 7,934
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @TheRealNihilist
    Explains why 1st amendment applies to people you do not agree with, even if you think their speech is hateful.

    There are either gatekeepers for human thought, or there are none.
  • Christen
    Christen avatar
    Debates: 5
    Forum posts: 332
    1
    4
    7
    Christen avatar
    Christen
    But you can be tolerant of intolerant people.

    If a person says they are intolerant of something, and you do not call for them to be censored or banned or whatever, and you allow them to talk about how intolerant they are without violating their First Amendment right, you are being tolerant.
  • bmdrocks21
    bmdrocks21 avatar
    Debates: 5
    Forum posts: 1,629
    4
    5
    9
    bmdrocks21 avatar
    bmdrocks21
    I don’t believe that it is necessary that the intolerant will overpower the tolerant, so long as we have our Second Amendment 😎
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 7,934
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @bmdrocks21
    The military is fond of saying they protect and defend the constitution even if it means protecting the intolerant left.
  • bmdrocks21
    bmdrocks21 avatar
    Debates: 5
    Forum posts: 1,629
    4
    5
    9
    bmdrocks21 avatar
    bmdrocks21
    --> @Greyparrot
    We shall be as tolerant as lefties have historically been. Gulags, anyone?
  • TheRealNihilist
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    Debates: 44
    Forum posts: 4,888
    4
    8
    11
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    TheRealNihilist
    --> @Greyparrot
    Explains why 1st amendment applies to people you do not agree with, even if you think their speech is hateful.
    Loaded question and no the 1st amendment does not say that but you already knew that. I wonder why you even said this even though you knew the answer already.
    There are either gatekeepers for human thought, or there are none.
    I guess murderers are really thought-provoking to warrant not arresting them oh wait the government is intolerant of murderers. 

     
  • TheRealNihilist
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    Debates: 44
    Forum posts: 4,888
    4
    8
    11
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    TheRealNihilist
    --> @Christen
    But you can be tolerant of intolerant people.
    Don't you see the problem with this? Do you tolerate someone trying to kill you? I don't think so.
    If a person says they are intolerant of something, and you do not call for them to be censored or banned or whatever, and you allow them to talk about how intolerant they are without violating their First Amendment right, you are being tolerant.
    Why have this restricted to speech? Even with this the law is not tolerant of someone shouting fire in a crowded theater when there is none or someone express their want for murder. 

  • TheRealNihilist
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    Debates: 44
    Forum posts: 4,888
    4
    8
    11
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    TheRealNihilist
    --> @bmdrocks21
    I don’t believe that it is necessary that the intolerant will overpower the tolerant, so long as we have our Second Amendment 😎
    The second amendment is not a God more so just words the US government chose to uphold. Without the US government protecting that it wouldn't be a thing. Freedom only goes so far and you will accept restrictions to this freedom for safety and convenience. Military, public maintenance etc. 

  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 7,934
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @TheRealNihilist
    Thought and application might be terms too ephemeral to a philosopher as yourself.
  • TheRealNihilist
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    Debates: 44
    Forum posts: 4,888
    4
    8
    11
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    TheRealNihilist
    --> @Greyparrot
    Thought and application might be terms too ephemeral to a philosopher as yourself.
    So you didn't have a point instead muh law and my thought experiment is not real. Great intellectual conversation.

    I guess this is also an attack on philosophy even though everything can literally be attached to it? I guess when you don't trust the institutions you end up more lost than before. Who would've thought?
  • bmdrocks21
    bmdrocks21 avatar
    Debates: 5
    Forum posts: 1,629
    4
    5
    9
    bmdrocks21 avatar
    bmdrocks21
    --> @TheRealNihilist
    If the government tried to take people’s guns, you will notice that a lot of people will start “losing” them
  • TheRealNihilist
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    Debates: 44
    Forum posts: 4,888
    4
    8
    11
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    TheRealNihilist
    --> @bmdrocks21
    It doesn't engage with what I said. You have rules, that is an infringement on freedom. 

    Saying people will realize their freedom is lost with guns doesn't mean they are too stupid to realize they never had freedom in the first place. 
  • bmdrocks21
    bmdrocks21 avatar
    Debates: 5
    Forum posts: 1,629
    4
    5
    9
    bmdrocks21 avatar
    bmdrocks21
    --> @TheRealNihilist
    Well, you are supposed to have some rules that prevent you from infringing others’ freedom. That is how you maximize freedom without anarchy.

    As we are seeing in Virginia, people aren’t really willing to stand for infringements on their rights. Now, if they incrementally limit freedoms, people generally don’t notice and they do lose it.

    This could get into some basic territory because I believe rights exist outside the government and the role of government is to enforce those rights. You seem to think rights only exist in government.
  • TheRealNihilist
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    Debates: 44
    Forum posts: 4,888
    4
    8
    11
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    TheRealNihilist
    --> @bmdrocks21
    Well, you are supposed to have some rules that prevent you from infringing others’ freedom. That is how you maximize freedom without anarchy.
    Murder laws stop killers engaging in their freedom.
    Rape laws stop rapists engaging in their freedom.
    Theft laws stop thieves engaging in their freedom.

    Need I go on?
    As we are seeing in Virginia, people aren’t really willing to stand for infringements on their rights. Now, if they incrementally limit freedoms, people generally don’t notice and they do lose it.   
    "too stupid to realize they never had freedom in the first place."
    This could get into some basic territory because I believe rights exist outside the government and the role of government is to enforce those rights. You seem to think rights only exist in government.
    I was speaking about freedom. Can you define it?

    I'll take about rights as well, I require evidence of where these rights come from or it is conjecture. 
  • Mopac
    Mopac avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 7,239
    3
    4
    7
    Mopac avatar
    Mopac
    Tolerance is not a vortue.
    Charity is.

    Charity is superior to tolerance.


  • bmdrocks21
    bmdrocks21 avatar
    Debates: 5
    Forum posts: 1,629
    4
    5
    9
    bmdrocks21 avatar
    bmdrocks21
    --> @TheRealNihilist
    Murder laws stop killers engaging in their freedom.
    Rape laws stop rapists engaging in their freedom.
    Theft laws stop thieves engaging in their freedom.

    Need I go on?
    Lol dude. Did you not read what I said? I literally said: "Well, you are supposed to have some rules that prevent you from infringing others’ freedom. That is how you maximize freedom without anarchy." You quoted me as saying that, yet you are pretending that I am against the very rules I advocated for. Murder is an infringement on your rights, which limits freedom. Owning a gun doesn't infringe on anyone's rights or freedom in the same way that owning a car doesn't.

    I was speaking about freedom. Can you define it?

    I'll take about rights as well, I require evidence of where these rights come from or it is conjecture. 

    Freedom includes protecting your rights. Do you believe that human rights exist, or are they just some construct that we randomly came up with?
  • TheRealNihilist
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    Debates: 44
    Forum posts: 4,888
    4
    8
    11
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    TheRealNihilist
    --> @bmdrocks21
    Murder is an infringement on your rights, which limits freedom.
    Then it is not actually about freedom only about rights.
    Freedom includes protecting your rights
    No it doesn't. This is basically you adding in 1+1=2 means God exists. There is no link to freedom and protecting rights because they are antithetical to one another. Protection is a restriction. You are stopping people from doing something and maybe even restricting the very person who is being protected allowed to do. 

    Can you define freedom or did you miss that question?
    Do you believe that human rights exist, or are they just some construct that we randomly came up with?
    What do you mean by exist and do have a better representation of the next option you gave or is that the best you can do?

  • bmdrocks21
    bmdrocks21 avatar
    Debates: 5
    Forum posts: 1,629
    4
    5
    9
    bmdrocks21 avatar
    bmdrocks21
    --> @TheRealNihilist
    Then it is not actually about freedom only about rights.



    I shall repeat myself with different wording. Third time shall hopefully be the charm. To maximize freedom, there should be laws to prevent you from taking away others' freedom. Murdering someone takes away their freedom.

    Freedom is defined as:
    the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.

    Sure, you are restrained from "acting" when murder is illegal. But, by killing someone, they cannot "act, speak, or think" anymore because they are dead. Their freedom from being murdered is therefore more important than your freedom to murder. 

    Thus, outlawing some things maximizes freedom.

    No it doesn't. This is basically you adding in 1+1=2 means God exists. There is no link to freedom and protecting rights because they are antithetical to one another. Protection is a restriction. You are stopping people from doing something and maybe even restricting the very person who is being protected allowed to do. 
    In order to maximizes freedom, as defined above, you must protect their rights. They have a right to life, and by protecting that right, you are also protecting their freedom. They are very much related.

    What do you mean by exist and do have a better representation of the next option you gave or is that the best you can do?

    Are rights something fabricated by the government, or do you believe that people innately have rights (such as to life) because they are human?

    That was the best I could do by only putting in as much effort as you have been.
  • TheRealNihilist
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    Debates: 44
    Forum posts: 4,888
    4
    8
    11
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    TheRealNihilist
    --> @bmdrocks21
    I shall repeat myself with different wording. Third time shall hopefully be the charm. To maximize freedom, there should be laws to prevent you from taking away others' freedom. Murdering someone takes away their freedom.
    Guess you are not for freedom. You are for rules which infringe on what people do. 
    the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.
    Link to the dictionary?
    They have a right to life, and by protecting that right, you are also protecting their freedom. They are very much related.
    This is about rights and you deny it? You have rules which bound people's freedom but you make that exception as if freedom is when these people can't do these things.
    Are rights something fabricated by the government, or do you believe that people innately have rights (such as to life) because they are human?
    That was the best I could do by only putting in as much effort as you have been.
    What is your definition of fabrication? 

  • triangle.128k
    triangle.128k avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 372
    1
    1
    6
    triangle.128k avatar
    triangle.128k
    --> @TheRealNihilist
    What specific ideas do you not want to show tolerance for?

  • bmdrocks21
    bmdrocks21 avatar
    Debates: 5
    Forum posts: 1,629
    4
    5
    9
    bmdrocks21 avatar
    bmdrocks21
    --> @TheRealNihilist
    Guess you are not for freedom. You are for rules which infringe on what people do. 


    Guess you are not for freedom. You want private individuals to infringe on others' freedoms.

    Link to the dictionary?

    This is about rights and you deny it? You have rules which bound people's freedom but you make that exception as if freedom is when these people can't do these things.
    If your action inherently robs another person of their freedom, what do you do? Do you give the aggressor the freedom, or do you give the victim their freedom? These are mutually exclusive choices. You have much more freedom for the victim and slightly less for the aggressor if you outlaw murder. Therefore, there is more freedom in general than there would be if you didn't impose that law.

    What is your definition of fabrication? 
    I said "fabricated". Means "invent" or "create". Why do you keep asking me to look up basic vocabulary words?

  • Tradesecret
    Tradesecret avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 719
    2
    2
    5
    Tradesecret avatar
    Tradesecret
    --> @TheRealNihilist
    It's the law of self-contradiction. The only absolute is there are no absolutes. Which logically brings us to the conclusion that - absolutes do exist. 

    Intolerance towards the intolerant is similar. An absurdity. Really it comes down to who is stronger and who is going to determine what the boundaries are going to be. Tolerance as an idea stems intrinsically from the Christian worldview - which started secularism. 

    In modern secular society - tolerance is defined in according to the view that the only tolerant position is secular. All other positions and religious and political views are welcome so far as they subscribe to the secular definition. As the secular society moves more and more away from its Christian basis - the tensions of intolerance become more and more visible. 

    Of course I would suggest that the modern form of secularism is more like an ancient position of polytheism much like the Romans and the Greeks had. 

    Today people talk about inclusive sports or societies - yet they are intolerant to anyone who disagrees with inclusiveness. They never offer a solution - save and except - shame them, ridicule them etc. They just want them all to die. Or change and become like them. Its nothing less than a form of cultural genocide. I know that is a big call; but what else is it? Yet, any so called tolerant person would laugh at the suggestion. Why? Because they are actually not tolerant.

    The irony of the tolerance movement is that it is far more intolerant than those who concede they are intolerant. I have been abused far more times by those practising tolerance than those who are so called intolerant. I have seen more people ridiculed, shamed, threats made to them, kicked out of groups, made to feel small, bullied all because they held to a different view - one that society has held to be correct for much longer than the current modern philosophy. 

    Now for the record, I don't have a particular problem with tolerance - and even being intolerant to some intolerants. We need boundaries. But I will be intolerant towards those who are intolerant of the intolerant as a matter of principle. We can subscribe to different positions. Yet, because I hold to a view is not a reason for me to presumed to be less than a human. And this is what the modern position of tolerance has become. Anyone who does not subscribe is deemed non-human. 


  • Death23
    Death23 avatar
    Debates: 17
    Forum posts: 217
    0
    4
    6
    Death23 avatar
    Death23
    There is no paradox. When people speak of tolerance in political discourse it's often in reference to the tolerance of ethnic minorities (e.g. the "Museum of Tolerance") rather than tolerance in general. It's not paradoxical to advocate for tolerance of ethnic minorities while simultaneously being intolerant of racism and bigotry.
  • TheRealNihilist
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    Debates: 44
    Forum posts: 4,888
    4
    8
    11
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    TheRealNihilist
    --> @Tradesecret
    It's the law of self-contradiction. The only absolute is there are no absolutes. Which logically brings us to the conclusion that - absolutes do exist. 
    Thank you. At least someone understands.