Jump to content

Paradox of Tolerance


Guest

Recommended Posts

The Terrible Travis
On 8/13/2017 at 2:32 PM, CaptainYesterday said:

You do realize that this exact theory can be used to denounce the Left's tolerance of Muslim extremists, right?

You mean the Muslim extremists that the right sold $110 billion worth of arms to?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think this is a paradox. The goal shouldn't be to be as tolerant as one can be but to forge a tolerant society. And this means not accepting intolerant behaviour. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Terrible Travis
15 minutes ago, Yato said:

Selling weapons to our allies is a bad thing?

Selling arms to brutal dictatorships is a bad thing, yes.

 

18 minutes ago, Yato said:

That has nothing to do with CY's argument either.

Except it does. I was pointing out that both sides tolerate Muslim extremists, not just the left. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, The Terrible Travis said:

Selling arms to brutal dictatorships is a bad thing, yes.

 

Except it does. I was pointing out that both sides tolerate Muslim extremists, not just the left. 

Yeah. Tell that to Obama and Clinton when they gave guns to ISIS, and nukes to Iran.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Terrible Travis
17 minutes ago, Yato said:

Yeah. Tell that to Obama and Clinton when they gave guns to ISIS

Not quite sure what you mean when you say they gave "guns to ISIS". If you're referring to the arming of Syrian rebels, then you should know that I oppose that as well and am in support of Trump's move to end the program.

 

17 minutes ago, Yato said:

and nukes to Iran.

Except that never happened.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, The Terrible Travis said:

You mean the Muslim extremists that the right sold $110 billion worth of arms to?

There's an old quote (I have forgotten who first said this), "The enemy of our enemy is our friend" 

 

At the time Iran was the West's enemy, so Iraq and the other Arab States opposing them became our friends. 

 

Of course, the fact that our armaments industry was one of the biggest beneficiaries of this had nothing to do with our policies on exporting weaponry 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Karacoreable
On 13/08/2017 at 11:47 PM, CaptainYesterday said:

People on the Left will regularly shut down any discussion of Muslim extremism.  The problem with these bogus "phobia" terms is that people use them to describe any thoughts they disagree with.

But when you define anything negative said about Muslims as Islamaphobia, then they are one in the same.

'The Left' aren't doing a very good job. It's all over the media. There's huge discussion around extremism here - there are multiple de-radicalisation programs in place, run by the government, and they're reported on quite regularly. Mind you, they're often careful to point out it's not just muslim extremists they deal with - but that's fair. Why demonise one specific group when there are plenty of other sources of extremism?

 

'The Left' in inverted commas because I feel like it's generally the political establishment who are scared of that conversation. Worried about it contributing to the recent uptick in hate crimes against muslims.

 

@Yato Some people, when they decide they want to kill you over a difference of opinion, whether that be a difference of opinion on race, religion, whatever, need to be put in a box while you convince them otherwise. Or they'll hurt someone. Specifically, people who put plans in place on how to act on these ideas need locking up.

 

Yes, that sort of thing is open to accusations of dystopian idealogical conversion therapy, but I really don't know how else you could possibly deal with extremism. I'm talking people who have planned attacks, although potentially have not been given the chance to carry them out. You can't just let them slaughter a load of innocents and sit back. 

 

It's a fine line though, at what point an opinion becomes extremist enough to merit intervention. I guess that's what you're saying? And you're trying out loads of profile pictures lol :lol: It's much harder to disagree with you when it's an anime character who looks sad :P 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 17.8.2017 at 9:26 AM, The Terrible Travis said:

You mean the Muslim extremists that the right sold $110 billion worth of arms to?

Bill Clinton and Obama and even Roosevelt did the same. So is the problem the right or left in this or perhaps something else? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ms. Maya the Bee said:

Communism isn't a violent ideaology

:blink:

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, CaptainYesterday said:

Communism by definition requires:

 

1.  The overthrow of the existing wealthy class, which can only happen through violence

2.  The new government to maintain the divination of wealth by means of threatening violence on its people who refuse

 

The only way Communism could not be violent is if you established and entirely new state in which literally every single founding and future citizen agreed with Communism, which is not at all practical.

Capitalism by definition requires:

 

1. suppressing of lower classes, which can only happen through violence (police enforcement), to benefit the wealthy class

2. The government to maintain the class divide by threatening violence and imprisonment on the lower class citizens

 

Under capitalism the majority of citizens will be oppressed for the benefit of the wealthy, it is an oppressive and violent ideology

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Ms. Maya the Bee said:

Capitalism by definition requires:

 

1. suppressing of lower classes, which can only happen through violence (police enforcement), to benefit the wealthy class

2. The government to maintain the class divide by threatening violence and imprisonment on the lower class citizens

 

Under capitalism the majority of citizens will be oppressed for the benefit of the wealthy, it is an oppressive and violent ideology

No it doesn't require that by definition. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CaptainYesterday said:

Capitalism does not control the police, I don't know where you are getting this from.

 

Capitalism also does not control the criminal justice system.

 

I don't think you understand Capitalism or Communism.

The government that enforces capitalism does.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Capitalism is only a means, it is not the control.

 

Capitalism is the heart in the body of society. The government is the brain, and the law is the organs that keeps things working. Every single person represents one cell. Police can be represented by the white blood cells, that prevent infection in both the organs and body. While the body has its flaws, it still functions as a single organism where things sometimes go wrong and it sometimes gets sick. 

 

In communism, there is no brain, but instead each cell has its own brain, and then these cells attempt to act like a single organism (A body) thus resulting in literal cancer, as each cell tries to do its own thing. This largely due to different parts of the body need different kinds of nutrients and in different amounts. Not ever cell can function with the same, mediocre nutrients. This causes one part of the body to forcefully take nutrients from another part of the body to prevent starvation and death. Leading to necrosis and infection. Ultimately failing as a single body, and thus breaking up into tiny smaller organisms. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, CaptainYesterday said:

You don't "enforce" Capitalism.

 

That's the whole point of it, it's an economic system, not a system of governance.

This is simply not true. If the government doesn't support capitalism, it ceases to exist.

Money is worthless, it's just bits of metal, paper, and digital numbers. If we refuse it, it has no value.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ms. Maya the Bee said:

This is simply not true. If the government doesn't support capitalism, it ceases to exist.

Money is worthless, it's just bits of metal, paper, and digital numbers. If we refuse it, it has no value.

 

Money is an invention to replace a medium of exchange, that used to be a very limited resource. Without money, there would be no way of exchanging goods in modern society. 

 

Even if you got rid of money, the process of trading goods will always exist. How do you suppose giving things, in exchange of services? People are not just going to give you what you want, unless you provide something in exchange. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The fall of capitalism is inevitable

Automation is increasing and there will be no space for human jobs, capitalism cannot survive in the future, it has no future.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Automization only gets rid of middle man technology, it doesn't build spaceships and goes to the moon. It can't be your psychologist, or doctor. Automation will only, if at all, get rid of the jobs no one wants to do in the first place. Like work at McDonald's. 

 

Also, has nothing to do with Capitalism. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...