If someone refuses to abide by the terms of tolerance, then they have no right to be protected by it.
Yes. Although it’s correct to point to Popper’s paradox of tolerance, it’s better to regard tolerance to be the terms of the contract that provides your rights and protections. Oh, you want to void someone’s rights? Don’t expect the protections of the contract if you’re in breach of its terms.
This (treat it like a contract, or like a treaty) doesn’t just avoid the mind-boggling that some people experience trying to get their heads around a paradox, it provides tools by which to restore a broken peace.
Given that the paradox of tolerance is given by a tolerant society, this seems like a more fair argument as it broadens the actions possible to the legal system.
However, certain crimes and repeat offenses should hold greater punishments (or initially Carey a heavy price) as these things threaten Liberal society as much as an enemy.
If you don’t have patience, I will summarize the excerpt from the wiki value:
Do not suppress intolerance if they’re willing to debate. Logically contradict and debase them instead. Only persue suppression if they ignore logic and use force as an argument.
Tolerance is an agreement, not a suicide pact. If someone refuses to abide by the terms of tolerance, then they have no right to be protected by it.
Yes. Although it’s correct to point to Popper’s paradox of tolerance, it’s better to regard tolerance to be the terms of the contract that provides your rights and protections. Oh, you want to void someone’s rights? Don’t expect the protections of the contract if you’re in breach of its terms.
This (treat it like a contract, or like a treaty) doesn’t just avoid the mind-boggling that some people experience trying to get their heads around a paradox, it provides tools by which to restore a broken peace.
Given that the paradox of tolerance is given by a tolerant society, this seems like a more fair argument as it broadens the actions possible to the legal system.
However, certain crimes and repeat offenses should hold greater punishments (or initially Carey a heavy price) as these things threaten Liberal society as much as an enemy.
What does greater punishment have to do with a threat to society?
Harsh penal systems cause more crime.
I agree with the sentiment, but the paradox of freedom is explained by Karl Popper much better than I could do it:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
If you don’t have patience, I will summarize the excerpt from the wiki value:
Do not suppress intolerance if they’re willing to debate. Logically contradict and debase them instead. Only persue suppression if they ignore logic and use force as an argument.
Is that not exactly where we are right now?
Yes, which goes back to me agreeing with graniteM.