PDA

View Full Version : Just an interesting perspective on PC



llotter
02-25-2011, 08:42 AM
From Wiki entry on Karl Popper:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The paradox of tolerance
Although Popper was an advocate of toleration, he opined that even a tolerant person cannot always accept another's intolerance.
For, if tolerance allowed intolerance to succeed completely, tolerance itself would be threatened. In The Open Society and Its Enemies: The Spell of Plato, he argued that:
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.
The utterance of intolerant philosophies should not always be suppressed, "as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion." However,
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.
Furthermore, in support of human rights legislation in the second half of the 20th century, he stated:
We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.[10] </div></div>

I posted this only because I stumbled across it and it supports a position that I've been advocating for some years

Gayle in MD
02-25-2011, 09:05 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">From Wiki entry on Karl Popper:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The paradox of tolerance
Although Popper was an advocate of toleration, he opined that even a tolerant person cannot always accept another's intolerance.
For, if tolerance allowed intolerance to succeed completely, tolerance itself would be threatened. In The Open Society and Its Enemies: The Spell of Plato, he argued that:
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.
The utterance of intolerant philosophies should not always be suppressed, "as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion." However,
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.
Furthermore, in support of human rights legislation in the second half of the 20th century, he stated:
We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.[10] </div></div>

I posted this only because I stumbled across it and it supports a position that I've been advocating for some years

</div></div>

You have never stated a single opinion on this forum, which supports anything stated in this quote, and in fact, the exact opposite!

G.

Sev
02-25-2011, 09:42 AM
And you have never stated anything that resembles intellectual honesty.

llotter
02-25-2011, 11:32 AM
http://billiardsdigest.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Main=31068&Number=322161#Post322161

Gayle in MD
02-25-2011, 11:58 AM
You call fomenting hatred against all Muslims, Tolerance?

You call praising a murderer, who take the law into his own hands, and BREAKS THE LAW, tolerance?

You call justifying your own acts, which you have described here, while you were harassing women about their personal life decisions, and teaching that to you children and Grand children, tolerance?

What a TOTAL CROCK!



<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.</div></div>

You support Gay bashers, who harrass grieving families of Veterans, at their grave sites, tolerance?

You are dangerously out of touch with reality. You have a history of supporting the spewing of hatred of Glenn Beck, and O'Reilly, both of whom HAVE supported violence, against more members of our society, than any other pundits, and YOU, more than anyone on this forum.

It is a JOKE, that you would describe yourself, as tolerant, or Supportive of the laws of the country.

G.

llotter
02-25-2011, 12:33 PM
Typical liberal, neither logic nor common sense has any effect.

The title of the excerpt is 'the paradox of tolerance'. meaning that there are limits on how tolerant a 'tolerant' society can be in the face of intolerance. A civil society can only tolerate a minimum of incivility or it will soon become uncivil itself.

In the Muslim example, it is obviously the Muslims that represent the intolerant philosophy and it is at our peril that we tolerate its intolerance.

I attempted to make the connection between excessive tolerance of the intolerant and the political correctness that is rampant today. Most of our society is hiding behind a lie because the truth has become unpopular. It is this tolerance of the 'lie' that is leading our whole society to lose touch with the 'truth' altogether.

Soflasnapper
02-25-2011, 02:42 PM
The utterance of intolerant philosophies should not always be suppressed, "as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion."

This is the critical judgment to make, then. When is it better to leave the free expression of even intolerant positions to be made without legal constraints, and when should we begin to outlaw them or some equivalent?

Holocaust revisionism is one particular case in point. Even relatively benign historical analysis on this subject is outlawed as hate speech in Europe and in Canada.

I think this goes to far in that case, and can easily go to far (too quickly) in other cases as well. Popper may or may not have agreed, don't know.

Gayle in MD
02-25-2011, 02:49 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Typical liberal, neither logic nor common sense has any effect.

The title of the excerpt is 'the paradox of tolerance'. meaning that there are limits on how tolerant a 'tolerant' society can be in the face of intolerance. A civil society can only tolerate a minimum of incivility or it will soon become uncivil itself.

In the Muslim example, it is obviously the Muslims that represent the intolerant philosophy and it is at our peril that we tolerate its intolerance.

I attempted to make the connection between excessive tolerance of the intolerant and the political correctness that is rampant today. Most of our society is hiding behind a lie because the truth has become unpopular. It is this tolerance of the 'lie' that is leading our whole society to lose touch with the 'truth' altogether. </div></div>

You are the personification of intolerance, Racism, sexism, Homophobia, and ignorance, and I don't tolerate, intolerant people like YOU.

Hence, ba bye? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/whistle.gif

cushioncrawler
02-25-2011, 02:54 PM
I agree with Karl. We need (good) intolerance. But there iz intolerance and there iz intolerance.
But in the case of that intolerant kult islam, it iz like wasps being allowed into a bee-hive.
Bees shood not tolerate wasps.
mac.

cushioncrawler
02-25-2011, 03:02 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">....Holocaust revisionism is one particular case in point. Even relatively benign historical analysis on this subject is outlawed as hate speech in Europe and in Canada.... </div></div>Yes -- I like reading Irving's stuff. He haz lots of good info. Just koz he tells a few fibs along the way this shoodnt detrakt from hiz good stuff/research. He keeps the anti-Nazi pipple very very honest -- and in the long run (and in the short run) this kan be good.
mac.
Wiki --- David John Cawdell Irving (born 24 March 1938) is an English writer specializing in the military history of World War II.[1] He is the author of 30 books on the subject, including The Destruction of Dresden (1963), Hitler's War (1977), Uprising! (1981), Churchill's War (1987), and Goebbels: Mastermind of the Third Reich (1996).

His work on Nazi Germany became controversial because of a perceived sympathy for the Third Reich and antisemitism. He has associated with far right and neo-Nazi causes, famously during his student days seconding British Union of Fascists founder Oswald Mosley in a University College London debate on immigration. He has been described as the most skillful preacher of Holocaust denial in the world today.[2]

Irving's reputation as an historian was widely discredited after he brought an unsuccessful libel case against the American historian Deborah Lipstadt and Penguin Books in 1996.[3] The court found that Irving was an active Holocaust denier, antisemite, and racist, who "associates with right-wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism,"[4] and that he had "for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence."[4][5]

Gayle in MD
02-25-2011, 03:11 PM
llotter can pick 'em, huh? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif