Submitted by doubtstack t3_10jdsyc in philosophy
Leemour t1_j5lokji wrote
Reply to comment by XiphosAletheria in Argument for a more narrow understanding of the Paradox of Tolerance by doubtstack
> Believing that certain behaviors are sinful or immoral, likewise not intolerance. Nor is merely expressing such beliefs, however annoying, upsetting, or offensive they may be to those who hear them.
This is... not really applicable. Majority of hamartiology books would describe sin as something harmful among other things. As long as a state of being is touted as "harmful", persons of such state of being will be at risk of violence: it does more harm to tolerate it, than not to.
Moreover, if we were to necessitate tolerance of such bigotry by allowing it to be said, then we also have to tolerate the visceral anti-religious sentiment that such bigotry causes to begin with. It not only means, that in fact we logically could scorn bigotry with a bigoted attitude, but it creates an unending cycle of insults and tension, where it's difficult to avoid spiraling into violence. It may be the hallmark of a "free" society, but it's definitely not the characteristic of a stable one.
TNPossum t1_j5nm6g8 wrote
>, but it creates an unending cycle of insults and tension, where it's difficult to avoid spiraling into violence.
But not impossible. And so long as the violence is at a maintainable level, then I would argue the benefits of legislating it do not outweigh the cons. The vast majority of people argue about tolerating certain views/lifestyles without shedding blood.
regalAugur t1_j5nt2za wrote
whether a certain kind of people should be allowed to live shouldn't ever be a question and we shouldn't tolerate people who act like it is
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments