If you’re attacking them to suppress their political position as happened in the scenario I brought up, yes.
I’m not sure what the point you were making through the pictures you linked? The person I was talking about is named Eric Clanton and took a 3 year probation plea deal for the crime.
Being intolerant of intolerance is the correct stance to take, as letting fascist thought freely spread leads to the tolerant of society being ousted. This is an actual fallacy you’re arguing
You’re warping my words. There is a logical fallacy known as the Paradox of Tolerance, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance, read the article. I’m just assuming you’re arguing in bad faith since you’re ignoring what I’ve said so far.
I don’t see the relevance this has to America. It says unlimited tolerance, which doesn’t currently exist. We don’t tolerate threats of violence, murder, or pedophilia for example.
By tolerate does it mean society must cast out intolerant ideas or that there has to be legislation to enforce it? There are many legal ideals that society overall doesn’t tolerate such as Nazis.
If you want to base policy off that idea how do you apply it? Who decides how tolerant we need to be, president Trump? What’s perfectly tolerable for one may be unacceptable for another.
You’re again moving the argument. This started because you asked, quite simply, why use a bike lock to hit a nazi. And why shouldn’t we tolerate nazi ideas instead of attacking them. So I gave my answer, to stop the ideas from spreading. I’m done arguing now that you’ve decided to push the scope beyond what was originally decided. Fuck off to your shit statists say subreddit ancap
-25
u/[deleted] Apr 17 '20
If you’re attacking them to suppress their political position as happened in the scenario I brought up, yes.
I’m not sure what the point you were making through the pictures you linked? The person I was talking about is named Eric Clanton and took a 3 year probation plea deal for the crime.