Wiki - The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually ceased or destroyed by the intolerant. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly self-contradictory idea that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance.

  • LemmysMum@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    That’s not what I asked. Two questions, two answers. I agree they believe they are harmed.

    • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      You provided no evidence that “Judaism” causes objective harm, but you allowed for all religion to be censored. Your model is inconsistent.

      • LemmysMum@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        If you want to stop being disingenuous we can continue our discussion, but I assume your response is born of belligerence. I wish you the best of luck.

        If this isn’t the case, reply with your answers to my two questions and I can continue when I get the chance.

        • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I reject the premise of your question that harm can possibly be “objective”, so my answer would be “no. The harm is subjective”. Applying your model, “subjective” harm does not qualify for censorship, but again, I reject your premise that harm can ever be considered objective fact. Your model thus suggests that nothing should be censored, but you have indicated that Judaism is one objectively harmful issue that should be censored.

          So, I want to know what “objective” harm you believe Judaism causes.

          • LemmysMum@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            You didn’t answer the questions. Two questions, two answers.

            If you want to keep being intellectually disingenuous and dodging like you play dodgeball, I’ll just accept you can’t without accepting that I was able to determine you were making a disingenuous attempt to make me say something that could be construed as ‘censoring all religion’.

            But my logic is solid and the questions remain posed. You showed your hand that the answer was Nazi’s referring to Judaism so I’ll finish the job for you.

            Is their determination objectively verifiably true or the projection of a feeling?

            The projection of a feeling.

            Does this behaviour harm them because of their own intolerance of this behaviour alone?

            Yes.

            Therefore their harm is self inflicted through bigotry. And you agree with me.

            • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I have not accepted any claim that harm can ever be considered objective. We are not at all in agreement, but we have narrowed down the point of contention.

              Even certain behaviors that out modern society does call for censorship of - such as calling for violence to a person or group - are not “objectively” harmful, but subject to public opinion. Death threats would generally be considered worthy of censorship, but death threats to Osama Bin Laden in the wake of 9/11 didn’t seem harmful. Are death threats and objective harm to be censored, or are they subjective, as I have just demonstrated?

              So again, I would like some examples of what you mean by “objective” harm, because I currently cannot conceive of any behavior that could be unequivocally, objectively harmful.

              • LemmysMum@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                I can’t imagine what it must be like to feel so in contention with someone who has all the right answers when you ask the right questions. I feel sorry for you.

                If you’d like to reform your diatribe into concise and cohesive questions I’ll gladly continue to answer them.

                It’s funny, kind of meta, you have this preconceived notion that I’m some bigoted racist born of the harm you feel when you attempt to interpret what I’m saying.

                You’re self harming with your own preconceived notions that aren’t congruent with reality just like the Nazis in our discussed example.

                • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Please provide an example of “objective harm”. You referenced this concept. You have clearly demonstrated that this concept is essential to understanding the model you have described, but I do not understand what you mean by that statement. Please provide an example to aid my comprehension.