Search:

[QUOTE=Marshmallow Marshall;861921]This implies that everyone is able, with the proper conditions external to themselves, to think logically[/quote]

Unless there's brain damage or some condition that affects that capacity, yes, everyone should be able to think logically, as it's a part of being human. People incapable of logical thought aren't fit to live in any sort of society, tolerant or not.

But that's not the issue at hand; the vast majority of intolerant people are very capable of logical thought, but the logical process of different people will vary wildly depending on their circumstances. After all, we haven't changed much since the days when people would see lightning in the skies thousands of years ago and think that some god was punishing or rewarding them for something; it's not that they were idiots or unable of thinking logically; they didn't have access to factual information that showed the real cause for it and were just repeating the same thing that everyone around them had been saying since the moment they were born.

[quote] and to think the same way on topics that are subject to bigotry... [/quote]

Not at all. It's the pizza example all over again. I can't stand pineapple pizza, but I'm not going to go to the pineapple pizza place and shoot everyone to death because of it. That's the whole point of tolerance; having the basic ability of holding different opinions and wanting different things without trying to impose them onto others by force. In fact, one could argue that one of the key components of a tolerant society would be that anyone is free to challenge its ideas, just not with guns and bombs. If everyone thought and wanted the same, there would be nothing to tolerate.


[quote]and that is doubtful, although you could argue it is true. It is however not provable, because removing all causes of bigotry in a society is purely utopic; the results of such an action can therefore not be proved. Because bigotry cannot be completely eradicated, it has to be handled, notably via laws and, arguably, censorship (the latter being the thread's point).[/quote]

Yes, of course. A fully tolerant society is utopian by definition and we'll never live to see anything remotely close to one outside of small communes of like-minded individuals. And yes, it is handled, but then again, unless its causes are addressed, any laws and censorship will be nothing but band-aids.

Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall

This implies that everyone is able, with the proper conditions external to themselves, to think logically

Unless there's brain damage or some condition that affects that capacity, yes, everyone should be able to think logically, as it's a part of being human. People incapable of logical thought aren't fit to live in any sort of society, tolerant or not.

But that's not the issue at hand; the vast majority of intolerant people are very capable of logical thought, but the logical process of different people will vary wildly depending on their circumstances. After all, we haven't changed much since the days when people would see lightning in the skies thousands of years ago and think that some god was punishing or rewarding them for something; it's not that they were idiots or unable of thinking logically; they didn't have access to factual information that showed the real cause for it and were just repeating the same thing that everyone around them had been saying since the moment they were born.

and to think the same way on topics that are subject to bigotry...

Not at all. It's the pizza example all over again. I can't stand pineapple pizza, but I'm not going to go to the pineapple pizza place and shoot everyone to death because of it. That's the whole point of tolerance; having the basic ability of holding different opinions and wanting different things without trying to impose them onto others by force. In fact, one could argue that one of the key components of a tolerant society would be that anyone is free to challenge its ideas, just not with guns and bombs. If everyone thought and wanted the same, there would be nothing to tolerate.

and that is doubtful, although you could argue it is true. It is however not provable, because removing all causes of bigotry in a society is purely utopic; the results of such an action can therefore not be proved. Because bigotry cannot be completely eradicated, it has to be handled, notably via laws and, arguably, censorship (the latter being the thread's point).

Yes, of course. A fully tolerant society is utopian by definition and we'll never live to see anything remotely close to one outside of small communes of like-minded individuals. And yes, it is handled, but then again, unless its causes are addressed, any laws and censorship will be nothing but band-aids.

[QUOTE=Marshmallow Marshall;860722]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[/QUOTE]

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.

Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall

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.

[QUOTE=Marshmallow Marshall;860684]It makes a lot of sense, but leads to another question, this one being more touchy: where's the limit, the "balance" secondpassing refers to? ][/QUOTE]

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.

Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall

It makes a lot of sense, but leads to another question, this one being more touchy: where's the limit, the "balance" secondpassing refers to? ]

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.

[QUOTE=Marshmallow Marshall;860195]Do ideologies that directly threaten freedom of thought and speech have to be censored to ensure survival of said freedom, or does that, on the contrary, directly lead to its destruction?[/QUOTE]

The paradox of tolerance is what you're looking for:

[quote=Karl Popper]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 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.[/quote]

Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall

Do ideologies that directly threaten freedom of thought and speech have to be censored to ensure survival of said freedom, or does that, on the contrary, directly lead to its destruction?

The paradox of tolerance is what you're looking for:

Originally Posted by Karl Popper

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 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.