Squorlple@lemmy.world to Lemmy Shitpost@lemmy.worldEnglish · 1 month agoOpinions on the internetlemmy.worldimagemessage-square30fedilinkarrow-up11arrow-down10
arrow-up11arrow-down1imageOpinions on the internetlemmy.worldSquorlple@lemmy.world to Lemmy Shitpost@lemmy.worldEnglish · 1 month agomessage-square30fedilink
minus-squareDeme@sopuli.xyzlinkfedilinkarrow-up0·1 month agoIt stops being a paradox if you treat tolerance as a contract between parties in a society, instead of a principle. They break that contract and thus are no longer covered by it.
minus-squareAurix@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up0·1 month agoWhat if the other party in question is of the opinion they didn’t break it, yet the other claims it has been. Who gets to decide it?
minus-squareDeme@sopuli.xyzlinkfedilinkarrow-up0·1 month agoThat’s a different question. However society enforces norms. Personally I would prefer some consensus seeking mechanism.
minus-squareRobotsLeftHand@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up0·1 month agoWelcome to social contract theory.
It stops being a paradox if you treat tolerance as a contract between parties in a society, instead of a principle. They break that contract and thus are no longer covered by it.
What if the other party in question is of the opinion they didn’t break it, yet the other claims it has been. Who gets to decide it?
That’s a different question. However society enforces norms. Personally I would prefer some consensus seeking mechanism.
Welcome to social contract theory.