Godric@lemmy.world to Lemmy Shitpost@lemmy.world · 3 days agoFinally an explanationlemmy.worldimagemessage-square274fedilinkarrow-up1834
arrow-up1834imageFinally an explanationlemmy.worldGodric@lemmy.world to Lemmy Shitpost@lemmy.world · 3 days agomessage-square274fedilink
minus-squareBeardededSquidward@lemmy.blahaj.zonelinkfedilinkarrow-up11·2 days 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-22 days agoIndeed. If one side breaks the contract, the other isn’t bound by it anymore either.
minus-squareHonytawk@discuss.tchncs.delinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up4·2 days agoThe tolerance paradox does not exist. See BeardedSquidwards comment.
minus-squarejamesrandysghost@lemmy.ziplinkfedilinkarrow-up3·1 day agoI think you need to re-read the comment…
minus-squarewpb@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up4·2 days 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?
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 think you need to re-read the 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?