This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
No. @Overwatch6
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
Jackaloftheazuresand · 26-30, M
@Pherick are you the one that posts that deceptive Popper meme? If you are you should just be quiet
Pherick · 41-45, M
@Jackaloftheazuresand No, I don't ever posts memes, they are always dumbed down versions of things, no context, if not total lies.
Jackaloftheazuresand · 26-30, M
@Pherick So you don't have an image of Karl Popper, something about the paradox of tolerance?
Hmm, I may be misremembering but I could've sworn that was you
Hmm, I may be misremembering but I could've sworn that was you
Pherick · 41-45, M
@Jackaloftheazuresand That's an infographic not a meme, and I have seen it here before. I don't remember off the top of my head if I have ever posted it, though that would be a graphic I would have.
It explains the tolerance paradox quite nicely.
It explains the tolerance paradox quite nicely.
Jackaloftheazuresand · 26-30, M
@Pherick it is a meme because of how it has spread but call it what you like, it's a deceptive image that leaves out Popper's full thought which contradicts the message of the image. Not exactly what I'd call quality when your source of information is cutoff to suit your needs.
Pherick · 41-45, M
@Jackaloftheazuresand Could you direct me to information regarding Popper's full thoughts? The reading I had done on subject made that graphic, while certainly not the full thought, still on point for Popper's message.
If am I wrong, it only then goes again to my point that graphics with small amounts of text are never the full story.
If am I wrong, it only then goes again to my point that graphics with small amounts of text are never the full story.
Jackaloftheazuresand · 26-30, M
@Pherick "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal."
As long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion. His teachings go against Jesus and the other cheek message but they do not suggest attacking someone or silencing them just because they are hateful, more like meeting them where they stand.
Yes, so going by that I don't want to see it from you in the future. Like I said, maybe you never posted it in the first place but if you have this will be the wake up call.
As long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion. His teachings go against Jesus and the other cheek message but they do not suggest attacking someone or silencing them just because they are hateful, more like meeting them where they stand.
Yes, so going by that I don't want to see it from you in the future. Like I said, maybe you never posted it in the first place but if you have this will be the wake up call.
