Agnostic.com

6 11

The Paradox of Tolerance, with Karl Popper

Jnei 8 July 14
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

6 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

This is a controversial discussion for sure

0

Exactly..

1

A "free" society must prohibit intolerant behavior. However, any proscription against speech, except of course shouting fire in a crowded building and perhaps egregious profanity in the presence of minors, severely negates the freedom of said society. Freedom of speech is the foundation of freedom. Therefore, unless I'm missing something, I fundementaly disagree with this post. Even if Hitler himself was giving a speech today in the USA and someone throws rotten fruit at him, as hard as this may seem to many, it is the person throwing the fruit who is a greater threat to our freedom.

sorry . you know that Europe does not have these hangs with free speech because they remember.. and they don't have trump either

In the UK, our cut-off point is incitement to violence. I support this. Free speech should not cover incitement to step on the freedom of others. The right to life is an even more fundamental right than free speech and must be protected as such.

@squiggy_70 Perhaps, I have a certain unavoidable level of cultural bias, but I in no way believe in American exceptionalism. That being said, laws that restrict people's opinions makes them thought criminals--unfortunately, legitimizing their martyrdom and greatly assisting their abhorrent cause. Theses abhorrent ideas are better delegitimize by exposing them to the free market of ideas, as we are doing so right now.

@contravalid hmm i Guess . our tolerance for bad manners and terrible thoughts because of free speech. really bugsme

3

This was an argument I had in the Conservatist Atheist Group. They laughed at the idea of liberal being tolerant. As if being liberal means tolerating the intolerable such as genocide, pedophelia, sex trafficing, vivisection, factory farming, water & air pollution. If I was still a member I would have posted this. But they are the ilk that does tolerate such intolerable issues in the name of deregulating business, aryan superiority, cadaver consumption, pollution not in their back yard.

1

What a quandry...?

3

Unconditional tolerance cannot exist. Otherwise we would have to be tolerant towards murderers and child sex abusers. If something does no harm, then it should be met with tolerance. If something does harm, then it should be met with intolerance.

The conflict comes from differing perceptions of harm. Those who are intolerant of (for example) LGBT people, feel they are defending their way of life and moral values from harm. Those who oppose them feel they're defending the rights of LGBT people to harmlessly go about their business and relationships.

Very well said

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:130765
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.