Views: 827

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I'd rather be intolerant of intolerance then be tolerant of intolerance for tolerance sake.

Especially our present day multicultural society there needs to be a place for everyone and tolerating intolerance allows for the destruction of the very fabric of said society.

Yes, it is intolerant but tolerance and intolerance have to strike a balance.

No. Criticism of intolerance is not intolerance.

I think Karl Popper summed it up nicely: "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them."

His point being that if we tolerate intolerance then we are making a rod for our own back. 

It comes down to a matter of semantics here. If you do not tolerate intolerance you are practising intolerance of intolerance. There for my reasoning is that you are being intolerant.

I say the same thing. We shouldn't tolerate intolerance for tolerance sake. It is a fallacy to do so. 

I would argue there is no such thing as intolerance of intolerance. For instance, if there is a young woman beheaded for adultery, am I being intolerant by criticising this practice? Hardly. I am simply being a sane and moral person. 

Sorry but I seem to understand that the topic is intolerance of intolerance?

By all means you may critique beheadings but do you tolerate beheadings in your own country? In some countries it is a perfectly acceptable punishment. They may not tolerate our lenient ways.

Critique and intolerance are two very different things in my book. I may critique your post but you are free to post again. I'd be intolerant if I'd ask you to get banned from this board for posting an opinion I do not like.

Do you see intolerance of intolerance as a double negative? I fail to see how you can see intolerance of intolerance as a critique. 

Strictly speaking, yes by definition, although a bit circular.  When it comes to social justice issues, however, I think the term tolerance (or intolerance) is poorly chosen.  I want the general drift of society to be more than simply tolerating differences.

Yes it is; but it is a benign and necessary intolerance.  The alternative is to implicitly endorse the kind that hurts people.

Even intolerant people tolerate something. It's all relative, not an absolute, all or nothing condition. I hate hate, too. I don't make fun of people often, and only when they make fun of other people. There is no fine line in any of these definitions.




Started by Jake LaFort in Small Talk. Last reply by Reg The Fronkey Farmer 7 minutes ago. 4 Replies

Do humans benefit the Earth? If so, explain.

Started by Tyrion in Small Talk. Last reply by Gregg RThomas 13 hours ago. 22 Replies

Poem: Clergy

Started by Fred Hampton in Religion and the Religious, Atheism and Atheists. Last reply by Gregg RThomas 17 hours ago. 1 Reply

Ernesto Che' Guevara

Started by Fred Hampton in Quotes. Last reply by Unseen 16 minutes ago. 23 Replies

Fred Hampton Is New Here

Started by Fred Hampton in Welcome to Think Atheist. Last reply by Fred Hampton on Tuesday. 8 Replies

Blog Posts

I am Ayaz Nizami

Posted by Noon Alif on March 27, 2017 at 10:30am 13 Comments

Seraphims and Cherubims

Posted by Fred Hampton on March 27, 2017 at 2:04am 0 Comments

© 2017   Created by umar.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service