Today 11:03 am
FOS » 45 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ Every midwit leftist is 'educated' on Carl popper's "paradox of intolerance", and I often hear them repeat this idea whenever they want to be clever.
Basically it goes like this: you cannot tolerate intolerance because that results intolerance.
It is painfully easy to refute this idea. In fact it is so easy that it makes me wonder why popper is a respected philosopher at all (perhaps because of this ethnic group?)
Quite simply, disembodied intolerance doesn't exist. Take Hitler, for example. He clearly did not like the jews, but that doesn't mean he lacked tolerance for everything. He seemed to have a remarkable degree of tolerance for germans, for example. In fact, the reason he was mad at jews is because he believed they were bad for the germans.
You can question whether he was correct aboutthat judgement, but that is all it is. A claim that is either true or false. It is not disembodied intolerance and it is not universally applied.
Indeed, Carl popper's argument would condemn literally any human who has a friend enemy distinction. Which is literally every human. Condemning all humanity is not very tolerant.
gosh. That was easy.
Popper's paradox reveals that to preserve tolerance, we must sometimes be intolerant of the intolerant, especially when they threaten the very existence of a free and open society. The problem with this, as I see it, is that he never defined what is meant by a 'free and open society'. He put no definition or parameters on this idea. Therefore, his paradox is rooted in nothing more than semantics from who the leaders are at the time.
Retarded Horse's view on women.
JohnEdgarSlowHorses » Today, 7:28 pm » wrote: ↑Today, 7:28 pm
JohnEdgarSlowHorses » Today, 7:28 pm » wrote: ↑Today, 7:28 pm
- I LOVE IT WHEN A CRACK WHORE GETS BEAT UP Image
- I WANT TO WATCH YOU BEAT YOUR CRACK WHORE WIFE Image Image Image
- PUT THAT WIFE BEATER ON AND GET BUSY