Patrons of the Sacred Art

OPEN TO REGISTER: Click HERE if you want to join Alchemy Forums!

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: The Paradox of Tolerance

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    5,361
    Blog Entries
    1

    The Paradox of Tolerance

    Question:

    Should a tolerant society tolerate intolerance?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    In the moment...
    Posts
    8,149
    Blog Entries
    2
    Answer:

    Yes.

    This is the same kind of debate as Freedom of Speech. Currently Hate Speech is not accepted in society, even if there is freedom of speech. This is wrong. Hate Speech should be allowed, because if it is NOT then it has to hide in double-speak... which is empowering to the hate speech, because then it can recruit dumbasses that can't think for themselves. Whereas Hate Speech straight up is harder to take to heart.

    Perfect example is Israel vs. Palestine. Israel has the power to be the "bigger man" and forgive and show compassion, but it doesn't act upon this opportunity... this is what happens when a society that is supposed to be tolerant doesn't tolerate intolerance.

    Donít let the delusion of reality confuse you regarding the reality of the illusion.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,470
    Quote Originally Posted by Andro View Post
    Question:Should a tolerant society tolerate intolerance?
    I do not know what a tolerant society is... but if you want to follow a strictly logical path, then the answer should be "yes" (from the point of view of formal logics)... otherwise you get into a formal paradox.

    However, I prefer to answer the question "Should a society accept intolerance?".... and my answer is certainly NO.
    I believe the USA is one of the countries with the biggest freedom of expression when it comes to intolerance.
    I am used to the ways of the place in which I live, where there is a restriction for xenophobia, homophobia, racism, sexism... and mostly whatever that means "X group of persons do not have the right to exist". I am OK with this restriction.

    Quote Originally Posted by Awani View Post
    Answer:
    This is the same kind of debate as Freedom of Speech. Currently Hate Speech is not accepted in society, even if there is freedom of speech. This is wrong. Hate Speech should be allowed, because if it is NOT then it has to hide in double-speak... which is empowering to the hate speech, because then it can recruit dumbasses that can't think for themselves. Whereas Hate Speech straight up is harder to take to heart.
    I do not see such thing happening here at all. Does it happen in Sweden? How are the laws there?

    Quote Originally Posted by Awani View Post
    Perfect example is Israel vs. Palestine. Israel has the power to be the "bigger man" and forgive and show compassion, but it doesn't act upon this opportunity... this is what happens when a society that is supposed to be tolerant doesn't tolerate intolerance.
    Terrible example... Israel is a theocracy. There is no such thing as a "tolerant theocracy", I can't think of any example in the whole history of mankind.
    "Tolerant theocracy" is another paradox!

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    In the moment...
    Posts
    8,149
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by zoas23 View Post
    ...formal paradox...
    Ooooh... la-di-da...

    Quote Originally Posted by zoas23 View Post
    I do not see such thing happening here at all. Does it happen in Sweden? How are the laws there?
    Compared to the whole world very free... yet Mein Kampf is illegal to sell and buy. WTF. How can you know the "enemy", if you can't read his book?

    Quote Originally Posted by zoas23 View Post
    ...tolerant theocracy...
    I was just pointing out the opportunity to show tolerance and be the "bigger man". However Israel is a "parliamentary republic", or so they say... but if you class it as a theocracy then I guess USA is that too... although in the US case it is mostly for show.

    Donít let the delusion of reality confuse you regarding the reality of the illusion.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,470
    Quote Originally Posted by Awani View Post
    Ooooh... la-di-da...
    Well... it is a formal paradox... but such thing belongs to the field of formal logic and the way in which the question was asked.
    Just like asking "Can a society that allows everything not allow X?" (with X being whatever you like)... from the point of view of formal logic, the answer is no... there is no debate there, but that's formal logic.
    I thought you were going to sing obladŪ oblada!!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Awani View Post
    Compared to the whole world very free... yet Mein Kampf is illegal to sell and buy. WTF. How can you know the "enemy", if you can't read his book?
    Same here, but they sell it anyway... There isn't really a control on the books, but there is a strong control on such affairs on people, but in 99.99% of the cases not ordinary persons, but politicians.
    Other than that, the far-right that matters here is not really into these things.... they are economical liberals and not really quite reactionary when it comes to other areas.
    (there is a "fascist" far-right, but they have something like 0.1% of the votes... something that almost doesn't exist).
    BUT this is probably because it is a country that was mostly invented by immigrants... so i have never heard the expression "Argentina for the Argentineans"... because it would be meaningless (most people I know are only 3rd generation here... so the concept of an "Argentinean race" simply doesn't exist, nor I have ever seen anyone promoting such thing, because it would be schizophrenic).

    Quote Originally Posted by Awani View Post
    I was just pointing out the opportunity to show tolerance and be the "bigger man". However Israel is a "parliamentary republic", or so they say... but if you class it as a theocracy then I guess USA is that too... although in the US case it is mostly for show.
    It is a theocracy... the political form that it takes is meaningless (it can be a Theocracy organized as a parliamentary republic", as a "monarchy", as a "parliamentary monarchy" or whatever... it is still a theocracy).

    The USA is not a theocracy at all... even if it is a warmongering country. I am far from being a USA enthusiast, but they have a very clear separation of Church and State (actually, I believe that if a political candidate for president there focused too much on Religion, it would become VERY detrimental for his campaign and would never win).

    Probably one of the persons who better understood the USA is... William Blake in his "America, a prophecy"... who had a mix of enthusiasm and criticism (though he was certainly impressed by the american revolution of 1776... but also foresaw a few "bad" things).

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    In the moment...
    Posts
    8,149
    Blog Entries
    2
    Well they do like to portray themselves as God Fearing Americans, and "in god we trust" and "god bless america" etc...

    As for the la-di-da... I just thought "formal paradox" sounded a bit high brow. I don't know... I'm in my own world...

    I guess in general no reason to take it further... since we are preaching to each others choir.

    Donít let the delusion of reality confuse you regarding the reality of the illusion.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,470
    Quote Originally Posted by Awani View Post
    Well they do like to portray themselves as God Fearing Americans, and "in god we trust" and "god bless america" etc...
    Words... but it is still a secular country.

    Quote Originally Posted by Awani View Post
    As for the la-di-da... I just thought "formal paradox" sounded a bit high brow. I don't know... I'm in my own world...
    Hahahaha... i happen to know logic, Awani.... it's not snob, it's simply boring! However, it is useful to know the basics, because you can know when an argument or question is tricky.... And Andro's question is tricky in an unwilling way. I assume he wanted a debate with opinions on both sides.
    However, the question is written in a way that only allows ONE answer, he could have asked "Should a tolerant society tolerate X?"... and "X" can be whatever there, the ON—Y logical answer is "yes".

    A funny book is "The Art of being right" by Arthur Schopenhauer.... I think it's the ONLY funny book on logic and it's mostly written as a joke, showing ways in which a debate can be won by using logical fallacies or tricks. It is almost stand up comedy disguised as a book... so you may like it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Awani View Post
    I guess in general no reason to take it further... since we are preaching to each others choir.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Location
    Far Side
    Posts
    119
    Quote Originally Posted by Awani View Post
    Answer:

    Yes.

    This is the same kind of debate as Freedom of Speech. Currently Hate Speech is not accepted in society, even if there is freedom of speech. This is wrong. Hate Speech should be allowed, because if it is NOT then it has to hide in double-speak... which is empowering to the hate speech, because then it can recruit dumbasses that can't think for themselves. Whereas Hate Speech straight up is harder to take to heart.

    Perfect example is Israel vs. Palestine. Israel has the power to be the "bigger man" and forgive and show compassion, but it doesn't act upon this opportunity... this is what happens when a society that is supposed to be tolerant doesn't tolerate intolerance.

    this times 1000x !!!

    perfect example with israel by the way!

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    15
    "Intolerance" is not easily defined. Saying a black man should not be President is clearly a case of intolerance. Yet I, having twice supported Obama, was classed as a "racist" for venturing to criticize him during his second term. Or again, I do not much care who puts which bodily parts where or with whom. Still, I find guys running around with dildos at a "gay pride" disgusting. (For that matter, I'd say the same about a hetero buddy playing publicly with a plastic pussy.) For this, I get called "homophobic." One can easily multiply examples. The parameters as to what counts as intolerance are being extended to cover any number of behaviors once classified as simple disagreement. The sole touchstone is that history's victims are now its sacred cows. (If I offend any Hindus here, live with it.) Of course, since victimhood is more and more a matter of self-definition, polite chit-chat becomes a minefield.

    In any case, do not fret yourself. The U.S. and Europe are no longer tolerant. They are simply intolerant in trailblazingly trendy directions. Sort of a 365-days a year Saturnalia.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    659
    This is yet another good example of what I meant in this thread about definitions, signs and symbols:

    http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showt...0931#post60931

    In the end (or in the first place as you wish) "racism", "intolerance","homophobia" are just simple words that mean nothing.

    It's you personally that it depends on in forming pictures, thoughts, connections in your mind to give these words meaning.

    There are official attempts of defining these words. Of course not everybody knows this and sticks to his own projections. This even happens if you know consensual definitions of words, I think one can't really do anything against that.

    Another phenomena is a kind of agreement on definitions of certain groups or masses that can differ from both official and personal ones.

    This can indeed be complicated like you showed on your examples. Not everyone would call you homophobic or racist for that what you say you have done (if that's really all).

    That's also the reason why absolute objectivity is impossible. One and the same observation is inevitably different in the minds of two or more people that are observing this object. Therefore science decided it is useful to agree to focus on certain measurable aspects, usually those that serve the best possible objectivity and avoiding most of the subjective rest that's as well going on in every observer's mind.

    I understand that in avoiding some parts, you can't get the whole picture. But it is on the other hand necessary to get somewhere as considering really "every thing" (including for example the thoughts in the mind of the observer during the observation) would be too much in most cases.

+ Reply to Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts