Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

[Marshmallow Marshall]

I think it's rather simple; I don't like pineapple pizza, so I can choose to never eat it, and to avoid gathering with those who eat it all day long, but I can't go from house to house shouting at people's faces so they stop eating it, invading pizza places and spitting on clients who are eating pineapple pizzas, demanding that people who like them can't live here, hiring some unskilled idiot instead of a way better candidate just because the latter eats pineapple pizza, suggesting that their houses should be taken and given to those who like "better" pizzas, or rallying others to attack them...

As long as you aren't hurting anyone nor inciting others to do it, you should be free to say and do whatever you want. Once you start messing with other people, that's when you don't get to be tolerated anymore as you are clearly unfit to live in a tolerant society.

100 % agreed. There's just one thing I'd like to point out: while this is rather simple, reality is not. The notion of "hurting others" can have multiple definitions and interpretations; a good example of this would be religious questions (e.g., can sikh people wear a knife all day everyday because it's part of their religion, or is that a threat to other people's security?).
Oh and. I like your example xD

Hypothetically, if you don’t allow at least some limited discourse on those themes, someone, in the future, is bound to make the same mistakes that led to the rise of those ideologies. The issue, I think, is that these ideologies will always be attractive to some people, to certain degrees. It may be that to some degree, these ideologies are only bad when taken to their logical extremes - against all moral feelings and respect for other people. So you could argue that it might make sense to outlaw such ideologies. As long as you teach people why they’re wrong. And you need to offer a bloody well detailed story of their rise and the mistakes they made, lest someone be tempted to repeat them again.

Exactly, and that is one of the reasons why history is of great importance. However, I was talking about people who already support ideologies that could be qualified as "dangerous", ideologies that promote intolerance and/or authoritarianism, who are already "converted", so to speak.
Hitler raised to power by convincing the masses because not many people realized what he could lead to, so you are right that schools should teach this better.

Rumox, I was talking about tolerant societies, not about those who promote intolerant ideologies lol, there would be no debate whatsoever, it's either jail or executon in those cases. And again, what is "obviously unacceptable" is subject to interpretation; see my reply to Sen.

[Sen]

100 % agreed. There's just one thing I'd like to point out: while this is rather simple, reality is not. The notion of "hurting others" can have multiple definitions and interpretations; a good example of this would be religious questions (e.g., can sikh people wear a knife all day everyday because it's part of their religion, or is that a threat to other people's security?).
Oh and. I like your example xD

I could swear I replied to this, but I guess I didn't.

I was saying that it's not a matter of figuring out where to draw the line to reach that balance; the line draws itself when you tackle the causes of bigotry; lack of education, poverty, disenfranchisement, violence, social exclusion, a media and politics apparatus that does nothing but throw half of the population against the other half all day long... you can't have a society that breeds intolerance and then try to force some arbitrary line that people must conform with against their entire upbringing. It's never going to work.

As for this very specific example, I'd feel safer in a room full of Sikhs with kirpans (the "knife") which are all about compassion, mercy, and protecting those who can't defend themselves from the intolerant, than in a room with a couple of unarmed bigots unable to engage in rational argument.