Godric@lemmy.world to Lemmy Shitpost@lemmy.world · 1 month agoFinally an explanationlemmy.worldimagemessage-square276fedilinkarrow-up1845
arrow-up1845imageFinally an explanationlemmy.worldGodric@lemmy.world to Lemmy Shitpost@lemmy.world · 1 month agomessage-square276fedilink
minus-squareBeardededSquidward@lemmy.blahaj.zonelinkfedilinkarrow-up12·1 month agoI remember being told it makes more sense when you realize it’s a part of the social contract. Breaching it prevents you from taking part in it.
minus-squareHonytawk@discuss.tchncs.delinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up5·edit-21 month agoIndeed. If one side breaks the contract, the other isn’t bound by it anymore either.
minus-squareHonytawk@discuss.tchncs.delinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up4·1 month agoThe tolerance paradox does not exist. See BeardedSquidwards comment.
minus-squarewpb@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up4·1 month agoI don’t see it. How does a society tolerating the intolerant not enable them to be intolerant, even if you believe in social contract theory?
minus-squarejamesrandysghost@lemmy.ziplinkfedilinkarrow-up3·1 month agoI think you need to re-read the comment…
Tolerance paradox in action!
I remember being told it makes more sense when you realize it’s a part of the social contract. Breaching it prevents you from taking part in it.
Indeed. If one side breaks the contract, the other isn’t bound by it anymore either.
The tolerance paradox does not exist. See BeardedSquidwards comment.
I don’t see it. How does a society tolerating the intolerant not enable them to be intolerant, even if you believe in social contract theory?
I think you need to re-read the comment…