Jump to content

Edit History

HeartaceX

HeartaceX

I think you have been a bit too abstract and vague on certain

regards, still, the moral quandary you are going through is 

not unheard of, I'll give you a Karl Popper quote to chew your

mind  upon, it's from "The open society and its enemies" from 

1945.

 

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. In this

formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of

intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in

check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the

right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not

prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they

may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to

answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of

tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.

 

I've been thinking about this for a while, and I still probably 

will continue to think about it well into the future.

HeartaceX

HeartaceX

I think you have been a bit too abstract and vague on certain

regards, still, the moral quandary you are going through is 

not unheard of, I'll give you a Karl Popper quote to chew your

mind  upon, it's from "The open society and its enemies" from 

1945.

 

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. In this

formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of

intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in

check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the

right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not

prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they

may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to

answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of

tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.

 

I've been thinking about this for a while, and I still probably 

will continue to think about it well into the future.

HeartaceX

HeartaceX

I think you have been a bit too abstract and vague on certain

regards, still, the moral quandary you are going through is 

not unheard of, I'll give you a Karl Popper quote to chew your

mind  upon, it's from "The open society and its enemies" from 

1945.

 

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. In this

formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of

intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in

check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the

right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not

prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they

may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to

answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of

tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.

 

I've been thinking about this for a while, and I still probably 

will continue to think about it well into the future.

HeartaceX

HeartaceX

I think you have been a bit too abstract and vague on certain

regards, still, the moral quandary you are going through is 

not unheard of, I'll give you a Karl Popper quote to chew you

mind  upon, it's from "The open society and its enemies" from 

1945.

 

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. In this

formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of

intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in

check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the

right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not

prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they

may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to

answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of

tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.

 

I've been thinking about this for a while, and I still probably 

will continue to think about it well into the future.

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 183 Guests (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online
×
×
  • Create New...

This website uses cookies, as do most websites since the 90s. By using this site, you consent to cookies. We have to say this or we get in trouble. Learn more.