This claim to logic or scientific reasoning in the face of not tolerating intolerance seems flawed and, to me, does not serve as a meaningful replacement for the subject of morality:
Imagine you have a child, who is not yours, screaming in your ear at the nearby supermarket. You do not tolerate it. You are intolerant of it.
At face value, with the paradox of tolerance in the form of "society must be intolerant of intolerance," you would need to hold to the position that society should not be tolerant of your intolerance to children screaming in your ear.
You'd need to accept that it's acceptable for children to scream in your ear.
The child's right to scream ends where my right to peacefully exist in a public space begins. The child's act of screaming directly in my ear clearly violates my right and is thus intolerant of it.
Hmm, yes, you're right. Thanks for the example. Perhaps further arguments could be made about what constitutes peace among individuals and what infringes on those definitions.
I believe we see scenarios today in which one's definition of peace infringes on another's.
I would say this example is also flawed because children scream in public all the time. It's just... reality. Kids scream sometimes for any number of good or not good reasons and making the parent feel even shittier than they already do about disturbing everyone around them isn't going to solve anything.
Would you advocate tolerating, say, parents neglecting their children in various ways that we think are harmful to development? Or would you instead try to spin those forms of child neglect as acts of intolerance?
We have laws that address child neglect. I'm not sure why so many in this thread think if we forbid intolerant speech that we're also in the same motion casting the entire book of laws into the trash...? It's a very odd segue.
People who advocate for laws that address child neglect are using intolerant speech, are they not? They are literally saying that we should be intolerant toward certain choices made by other people. Should such speech be forbidden?
For the sake of argument, I will grant that. That's not what I asked though.
Why is saying "we should not tolerate X" not intolerant speech, when it is literal advocacy of intolerance in the form of speech?
If we agree with you that all intolerant speech except for speech which is intolerant of intolerance should be prohibited, why should such speech not be prohibited, when X != "intolerant speech"?
> Why is saying "we should not tolerate X" not intolerant speech, when it is literal advocacy of intolerance in the form of speech?
Because like any other law in any society, context is taken into account. You're deliberately twisting what would normally be said in this situation, something like:
"Parents must feed their children"
Into a ridiculous alike of:
"We should not tolerate parents not feeding their children"
Which is not only how literally not a single person alive speaks, but is also a transparent attempt to make a ridiculous example that wouldn't happen to discredit the idea of banning intolerant speech.
The dictionary defines intolerance as: 1 : unable or unwilling to endure, which is applicable to the sort of example you're putting forward, which is as a side-note, an excellent example of a tendency of right-leaning people to put forward arguments that, while logically sound, in any context look and are ridiculous. I know this, because I spent a long time doing it myself. Now, being that we're two smart people having a discussion, we're going to use the second definition, which is clearly what is being discussed and is relevant to the question:
2a: unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious matters, b: unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights
RE: Bigotry, which is what is behind so many movements in this vein. Speech from these movements can and should be suppressed under the law, citing that the things they are saying are intolerant, because their speech is putting forth the argument that a certain group of whatever kind of people should be denied some kinds of expression or rights in the public space, and it's doing so, going back to my original comment, for no reason or logic, but to indulge their bigotry.
Yes, are you willing to grant or share social, political, or professional rights with everyone on this earth (except perhaps bigots)? In other words, do you think it's intolerant for a country to have any immigration system other than open borders (except that bigots don't have to be allowed in) or any exclusive political benefits for its citizens, such as the right to vote? Because if so, you've just declared the majority of people in this country to be bigots, who in your view should not be tolerated according to the second definition, i.e. you don't want to grant them equal freedoms or share social, political, or professional rights with them.
> Yes, are you willing to grant or share social, political, or professional rights with everyone on this earth (except perhaps bigots)?
Yes.
> In other words, do you think it's intolerant for a country to have any immigration system other than open borders (except that bigots don't have to be allowed in) or any exclusive political benefits for its citizens, such as the right to vote?
I think it's perfectly acceptable for a country to have a reasonable set of requirements and a well documented and transparent process to attain citizenship of a country, and the benefits which citizenship confers, i.e. state benefits, school attendance, the right to vote, and safety protections.
> Because if so, you've just declared the majority of people in this country to be bigots, who in your view should not be tolerated according to the second definition, i.e. you don't want to grant them equal freedoms or share social, political, or professional rights with them.
I hope you had a protein bar or something after making all those leaps.
I have said nothing of the sort. Not being a citizen of the United States doesn't make anyone a bigot. Conversely, being a citizen of the Unites States also doesn't mean you aren't a bigot. These terms are completely unrelated from each other and I have no idea how you think this tortured logic is supposed to work.
Perhaps instead of coming up with bizarre theories on how the people intolerant of intolerance are the REAL intolerant ones, maybe you should reflect on why you feel so personally attacked by the idea that intolerance shouldn't be tolerated?
OK, so you are unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights with the people that don't meet those requirements, and who happen to have been born outside of your country. Sounds to me like you're intolerant of them, according to the second definition. Do you disagree? Would you like to revise your definition once more so that it more narrowly refers to the right people?
>Not being a citizen of the United States doesn't make anyone a bigot. Conversely, being a citizen of the Unites States also doesn't mean you aren't a bigot. These terms are completely unrelated from each other and I have no idea how you think this tortured logic is supposed to work.
I said nothing along those lines.
>how the people intolerant of intolerance are the REAL intolerant ones
I said nothing of the sort.
>maybe you should reflect on why you feel so personally attacked by the idea that intolerance shouldn't be tolerated?
I know very well why I dislike the idea that some of my countrymen should be suppressed under the law for expressing their genuinely held beliefs and advocating for what they see as their own interests, whether or not some dictionary definition calls their ideas intolerant. I think telling people they can't express their beliefs or advocate for what they see as their own interests is the first step toward a shooting war. If you tell people they can't express their beliefs, you are telling them you can't live peacefully alongside them as countrymen. In the case of many of the people you are calling intolerant, I don't believe that's how it is.
> OK, so you are unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights with the people that don't meet those requirements, and who happen to have been born outside of your country. Sounds to me like you're intolerant of them, according to the second definition. Do you disagree? Would you like to revise your definition once more so that it more narrowly refers to the right people?
You're deliberately misconstruing what I'm saying. I have no problem with a country instituting an immigration policy, nor am I intolerant of people not born in my country. You're trying to put forth that I cannot both respect the rule of law of a civil society while still respecting human rights on a larger scale. These ideas are not at odds, and won't be no matter how many times you try and make it sound that way.
At it's core your example is bad because there are tons of other variables involved in an immigration process that have nothing whatsoever to do with culture, speech, views, religion, etc. (and, taken further, a properly designed immigration policy in my mind wouldn't take any of those into account anyway.) In short, it's apples and oranges.
> I know very well why I dislike the idea that some of my countrymen should be suppressed under the law for expressing their genuinely held beliefs and advocating for what they see as their own interests, whether or not some dictionary definition calls their ideas intolerant.
"Genuinely held beliefs" are a terrible basis from which to derive law. We don't make murder illegal because people think it's mean to kill people, or because a divine deity said not to. We do it because it infringes on their right to live.
If 2016 should teach you anything, it's that genuinely held beliefs by large amounts of people, no matter how large they are and no matter how much they believe them, do not constitute reality. End of. Reality is reality and beliefs are beliefs, and while they occasionally agree, one is real, and the other is not.
>You're deliberately misconstruing what I'm saying.
I'm using the definition you gave. That's it. If you want to revise the definition, feel free.
>You're trying to put forth that I cannot both respect the rule of law of a civil society while still respecting human rights on a larger scale.
No, I'm not, and I don't think that. I'm saying you're intolerant of those people according to the definition you gave. That's it.
>At it's core your example is bad because there are tons of other variables involved in an immigration process that have nothing whatsoever to do with culture, speech, views, religion, etc. (and, taken further, a properly designed immigration policy in my mind wouldn't take any of those into account anyway.)
I'm sure it wouldn't, but that's irrelevant. Refusing to share social, political, or professional rights with someone because they were born in the wrong place and don't meet your reasonable requirements means you are intolerant of them, according to that definition you gave.
>"Genuinely held beliefs" are a terrible basis from which to derive law.
Telling people they can't express genuinely held beliefs is, I think, a pre-cursor to real world violence. Avoiding real world violence is a totally reasonable objective to have in mind when crafting law.
>If 2016 should teach you anything, it's that genuinely held beliefs by large amounts of people, no matter how large they are and no matter how much they believe them, do not constitute reality.
I agree. So? Which ones are you willing to kill your fellow countrymen over?
> No, I'm not, and I don't think that. I'm saying you're intolerant of those people according to the definition you gave. That's it.
That is not intolerance.
> I'm sure it wouldn't, but that's irrelevant.
How is your example being flawed irrelevant?
> Refusing to share social, political, or professional rights with someone because they were born in the wrong place and don't meet your reasonable requirements means you are intolerant of them, according to that definition you gave.
No, it doesn't. There are all kinds of legitimate reasons to not allow a person into a country. If they are not vaccinated against certain diseases, for example. Or if they have outstanding warrants for their arrest in other countries (unless of course they're seeking asylum).
You're (I think deliberately) clouding the difference between legitimate reasons to deny entry and intolerance.
> Telling people they can't express genuinely held beliefs is, I think, a pre-cursor to real world violence. Avoiding real world violence is a totally reasonable objective to have in mind when crafting law.
Your right to express a belief ends in my mind where said belief intends harm, be it physical, economic, mental or whatever form of harm, on another person. And in turn, anyone who intends that harm and engages in such speech, either for actual beliefs or simply to make money off of those susceptible to that sort of manipulation, should be punished.
> I agree. So? Which ones are you willing to kill your fellow countrymen over?
Nobody is killing anyone. You and people who think like you will be outvoted, and dragged to a prosperous future whether you want it or not.
It is according to the definition you gave. That much seems clear.
>How is your example being flawed irrelevant?
I was referring to your desired immigration system. Regardless, I explained why it was irrelevant immediately after the line you quoted.
>No, it doesn't.
Yes, it does.
>There are all kinds of legitimate reasons to not allow a person into a country.
Relevance? The word "legitimate" did not show up in your definition. No exception for being unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights was carved out for those with "legitimate reasons" for doing so.
>You're (I think deliberately) clouding the difference between legitimate reasons to deny entry and intolerance.
According to your definition, the two are orthogonal.
>Your right to express a belief ends in my mind where said belief intends harm, be it physical, economic, mental or whatever form of harm, on another person.
What exactly do you mean by "intends"? If I advocate for, say, deporting illegal immigrants, and I do so because I think it's in my self-interest for that to be done (whether or not I'm correct), but I hold no ill-will toward said illegal immigrants, and maybe even consider it unfortunate that our interests are in opposition, would you say that I "intend" them harm, simply because I know that economic harm will come to them if the policy for which I advocate is adopted?
Do I need to harbor some sort of malice in my mind in order to intend them harm, or is it enough to merely know it will happen as a (perhaps unfortunate and undesired) consequence?
>Nobody is killing anyone.
Then why ban people from saying what they want?
>You and people who think like you will be outvoted
Maybe. Let's hope not.
>and dragged to a prosperous future whether you want it or not.
Why should anyone trust you to ensure that prosperity rains upon them when you talk about them like that?
So if science and logic one day makes a good case for you to be intolerant you will then leave the tolerant side and become intolerant? That, if anything, is the nature of ideological possession. What a weird view to hold.
Besides, science and reason can tell you very little about morality as tolerance is a moral concept not a scientific one. In fact, science can make no moral claims as those by nature are value claims which by definition are the antithesis of the scientific method. So I have no idea how you intend on squaring that circle.
And the fact that you are "completely fine" with what the parent said just goes to show how little consideration you have given the topic before making such an ideologically driven comment :/
> So if science and logic one day makes a good case for you to be intolerant you will then leave the tolerant side and become intolerant?
Yes. And since there is no reason or logic behind intolerance, I'm not seeing that as a risky bet of any sort.
And you're right, I don't have consideration for this topic because there is no topic as far as I'm concerned. I used to be on the right, and I used to hold all kinds of cognitive dissonances in my head at once to explain the belief system therein. And yes, it made total sense to me at the time, but with the benefit of hindsight and a lot of experience in life, I can say with complete confidence that I was 100% full of shit, indoctrinated into a moral system that has no basis in any kind of rational thought, that is largely based on fear and maintaining a status quo under which I benefitted greatly.
There is no reason behind intolerance. There is bigotry, fear, oftentimes disgust, and occasionally just good old fashioned hate. But there is no reason, no logic, and certainly no science.
How can anyone possibly have a conversation with someone as radicalized as yourself? There is nothing I can say of value when your answer to: Would you become an intolerant evil man if presented the opportunity to? is "YES OFC! but there is a low chance of that happening atm..."
The question was, IF science would present him with the gift of intolerance (considering that he put science as the arbiter for moral truths), would he accept it?
If Yes: he´s an ideologically driven twat.
If No: why bring up science when it literally has 0 to do with the domain of value-claims?
> "Evidently you believe science and rationality is the path to evil."
I am not sure how you got there considering the fact that I am part of that group myself but yea... seems like the concept of an if/else statement is a bit too hard to grasp
This refers to a joke made by Stephen Colbert (while portraying his satirical persona of right-wing host Stephen Colbert) that "reality has a well-known liberal bias"[1].
It is generally used to point out that many of the stories pointed to by conservative media as exhibiting liberal bias are often simply reporting on facts that are incompatible with conservative talking points.
Examples include: relative sizes of inauguration crowds, whether China or US importers pay for tariffs, the contents of the Mueller report, crime statistics on undocumented immigrants, crime statistics on Muslim communities, merits of single-payer healthcare in other first-world countries, various statistics on gun crime, impact of republican vs. democratic presidents on government deficits, benefits (or lack thereof) of trickle-down economics/cutting corporate taxes, and the causes and mitigations of the US Great Recession that began in 2007/2008.
That typically people who identify as conservative often take positions that are at odds with things that should be accepted as objective fact.
Saying "the Earth is getting warmer on average every year" should not be a political statement. But here we are, where you have one group of people who have a vested interest in denying that fact. To profess the fact that our planet is warming and that it is an issue is to implicitly identify yourself as a "liberal".
Black people are disproportionately punished by the legal system for the exact same crimes committed by people of other skin colors. There's actual data showing this. But to bring this up gets you labeled as a "liberal".
To remark that police treat white people who are known to be criminals better than black people who aren't even engaged in suspicious behavior is easily documented. Mention this and you will be called a liberal.
And denying this does no favors to liberals or conservatives. Because even the batshit insane liberals get to trout out that line about "truth having a liberal bias". Because, for the most part, it's not wrong. But conservatives get to mock the statement by using it against the most radical of ideas that are generally seen as "liberal".
But what are we gonna do? If hard facts and reliable information could actually change minds, we wouldn't have Trump as President. You wouldn't have his legions of followers denying that he's doing the very things he is doing. I don't care if you're Republican or Democrat, Trump is not only unfit for the office, he's a criminal. The Republican party should be ashamed that he's representing them in the Executive branch.
Practical example: we shouldn't accept immigrants into our country (whatever the country is). Even for economical reasons. Even if there are no jobs for them. Even if there's no infrastructure to support them. Ooops, intolerant. Thoughtcrime.
Well actually now that I think of it, any argument can be reshaped as intolerant. Abortionist? Intolerant of life, or of religion. Pro-life? Intolerant of women's rights.
I don't know, I just think "intolerance" is such a stupid concept, and in this day and age it is used to attack the right, but it doesn't mean anything, it's a wildcard.
> Abortionist? Intolerant of life, or of religion.
Forcing people to abort would be intolerant of life or religion, but that is not what abortionists do or are.
> Pro-life? Intolerant of women's rights.
The pro-life position of forcing women to not have abortions is indeed intolerant of their rights. Whatever their own reasons (religion or otherwise), they are their own and not of their targets.
Thank you for providing such clear examples; it is clear one of these is actually intolerant.
In the examples you have given, it all comes down to a particular society definition of whom has rights and whom doesn't.
Your argument is based on a specific society where law states unborn children have no rights. In a society where they would have them, your all argument becomes immediately invalid.
That goes on to validate the GP argument that "intolerance" is nothing but an abstract concept.
> Your argument is based on a specific society laws about unborn children having no rights. In a society where they would have them, your all argument becomes immediately invalid.
No. I do not argue on when during a pregnancy a child begins to exist, or when it has rights. In fact, not even my parent argued these or any similar point. You are the first in this chain to bring it up here.
Please read my comment carefully. I do not argue whether abortionists are or are not intolerant. Precisely because, as you say, that depends on deciding when a child's existence and rights begin, which is not the debate we are having.
I argue instead against my parent's claim that abortionists can be called intolerant of religion simply because a religious party wants to impose their own religion on the expectant and thus force them into not aborting.
The point is that you argue that pro life are intolerant because they don't respect woman rights.
Well, then, using your argument, in a society where unborn children have rights, the exact same thing can be said about pro abortion: they are intolerant because they don't respect children rights.
So, the all concept of intolerance, comes down to a specific set of laws a society observes, making the concept abstract.
And I think you're trying to butt a point in that is not under debate.
The fact that anti-abortionists are intolerant of abortionists' rights is not affected by whether abortionists are intolerant of someone else's rights. Both can be intolerant; only, the former is clear and the latter is under debate elsewhere (i.e., not here).
> So, the all concept of intolerance, comes down to a specific set of laws a society observes, making the concept abstract.
Even within a society where both parties are intolerant, the fact that both are intolerant does not "make the concept of intolerance abstract". A can stab B and B can stab C, that does not make the stabbings of B and C "abstract".
You are effectively arguing that, in Alabama, for instance, since 2 months ago, pro choice are the intolerant ones and pro life are the non intolerant. After all, the law there, says so according to your reasoning.
> A can stab B and B can stab C, that does not make the stabbings of B and C "abstract".
If A stabbing B is a crime and thereby - according to your reasoning - "intolerant", while B stabbing C is not a crime and therefore non "intolerant". Then the concept of "intolerance" is definitively an abstract.
I am not arguing that, you are. Please, try not to put words in others' mouths.
I mean, of course according to ISIS ending the lives of "kaffirs" is rightful and correct. There is no question whether they think so or not. Their position on it is clear. But even within this position, it is clear that killing kaffirs is intolerant of their life. Even ISIS would agree. As would I. Where they and I differ is in whether this intolerance is 'right' or 'wrong'.
'Intolerance' does not automatically equate to 'right' or 'wrong'.
The state of Alabama can choose to be both intolerant and be okay with it, even call it 'the right thing'. That does not stop them from being intolerant of women's rights.
Neither 'Right' nor 'wrong' automatically equate to 'intolerant' or 'tolerant'.
> If A stabbing B is a crime and thereby - according to your reasoning - "intolerant"
Again, please, stop putting words in others' mouths. I make no comparison (or "reasoning", as you claim I did) between 'stabbing' and 'tolerance'. I merely point that a subsequent negative action by a victim does not make the concept of the negative action "abstract".
Your original words were: "The pro-life position of forcing women to not have abortions is indeed intolerant of their rights."
See, you equate "intolerance" with defending to violate someone "rights".
Obviously in place where the "rights" are different - i.e. Alabama - then it changes who is the intolerant one. In Alabama, according to your original comment, the intolerant are the pro choice ones: according to your reasoning, not to mine.
Of course that you could just accept the obvious, that the concept of intolerance is clearly abstract, and finish the discussion....
One party being intolerant does not prevent the another party from being intolerant. As I have tried to show repeatedly, multiple parties can be intolerant.
> In Alabama, according to your original comment, the intolerant are the pro choice ones: according to your reasoning, not to mine.
Expectant women in Alabama do not suddenly lose their rights when Alabama declares 'fetus' = 'child'. Alabama instead chooses to override women's rights and place fetal rights above it.
> Of course that you could just accept the obvious, that the concept of intolerance is clearly abstract, and finish the discussion
I could repeat this statement back to you, with the only change being my claim instead of yours, and it would mean just as much as it means when you say this. But that would be discourteous and discouraging of discourse, so I will try yet again, one final time:
The concept of intolerance is not any more "abstract" than "the concept of harm".
>As I have tried to show repeatedly, multiple parties can be intolerant.
Re-read your original comments then:
"The pro-life position of forcing women to not have abortions is indeed intolerant of their rights."
"Forcing people to abort would be intolerant of life or religion, but that is not what abortionists do or are."
Now understand that abortionists are "intolerant of life" as the original GP stated, because they are intolerant of the children/fetus rights, not of the woman deciding not to abort (I think that is obvious to anyone... but here I am having to write it down).
Your all argument was that woman have those rights, but children/fetus don't, therefore forcing woman to conceive was against their rights, and, you concluded, intolerant.
I confronted you with realities where the children/fetus rights are higher than those of women (i.e. Alabama) and by your reasoning, that changes who is the intolerant one.
> The concept of intolerance is not any more "abstract" than "the concept of harm".
Harm is also an abstract concept of course, I don't understand where you want to go with that sentence.
You keep saying things like "... who is the intolerant one." in response to my point that the position or capability of intolerance is not limited to only "one" party. "Multiple" vs. "one".
> Harm is also an abstract concept of course, I don't understand where you want to go with that sentence.
Harm is often quite real. Not unlike intolerance. That was my point.
> Allowing people to murder human beings is intolerant.
You see, this kind of behaviour is why I feel this discussion is not between two honest parties under good faith. Your rhetoric here and above (about religion of anti-abortionists being encroached upon by abortionists) give me the impression you are being unfair and disingenuous. If this is true, there is simply no way to discourse.
But I could be grossly wrong, and under that faith I will try to point out how you assuming that everyone automatically shares your views is wrong:
Take three people:
1. A Muslim who claims that all consumption of porcine meat is bad;
2. A Hindu who claims that all consumption of bovine meat from a female is bad; and
3. A Christian who claims that all consumption of shellfish is bad.
If these people tried to prevent everyone (including you), no matter their religion or beliefs, from consumption of all these three kinds of substances; they'd be imposing their own views and assumptions on everyone else (including you), and thus be intolerant of everyone else's (including yours) views.
Fetuses are not human beings by any scientific definition. Even without being aborted, a fetus is far from guaranteed to be born. A lot can happen in 9 months.
If the mother has a miscarriage, is she now a murderer? If she's in a car accident and loses the baby, is the other person involved in the crash a murderer? Does it depend on who was at fault in the accident?
If a doctor fails to see a birth defect in time, are they now charged with manslaughter?
Does a mother collect child support from a father at time of conception? Do they collect state benefits from the beginning of their pregnancy?
This thing conservatives want to do of making fetuses people is a bottomless pit of regulatory gotchas. It's ridiculous.
If it is established that a child exists as of the moment when the expectant wants an abortion, then yes her abortion would be intolerance of the continued existence of the child.
In fact, in many jurisdictions that allow abortion at some stages of pregnancy, there are stages of pregnancy where it is accepted that a child exists (or similar) and thus abortion (without other conditions) is not allowed.
But a debate on in which stages a child exists during a pregnancy is not the debate we are having here.
I'm not really an anti-abortionist. You can replace 'child' with 'fetus', if you like; my point is just that the word itself applies to any preference over world states.
> I don't know, I just think "intolerance" is such a stupid concept, and in this day and age it is used to attack the right, but it doesn't mean anything, it's a wildcard.
That invariably forces the political landscape to move to the left. Which, I guess, is the intended result of holding that point of view.