Squorlple@lemmy.world to Lemmy Shitpost@lemmy.worldEnglish · 8 个月前Opinions on the internetlemmy.worldimagemessage-square31linkfedilinkarrow-up1265arrow-down110
arrow-up1255arrow-down1imageOpinions on the internetlemmy.worldSquorlple@lemmy.world to Lemmy Shitpost@lemmy.worldEnglish · 8 个月前message-square31linkfedilink
minus-squareDeme@sopuli.xyzlinkfedilinkarrow-up17·8 个月前It stops being a paradox if you treat tolerance as a contract between parties in a society, instead of a principle. They break that contract and thus are no longer covered by it.
minus-squareAurix@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up1arrow-down6·8 个月前What if the other party in question is of the opinion they didn’t break it, yet the other claims it has been. Who gets to decide it?
minus-squareDeme@sopuli.xyzlinkfedilinkarrow-up8·8 个月前That’s a different question. However society enforces norms. Personally I would prefer some consensus seeking mechanism.
It stops being a paradox if you treat tolerance as a contract between parties in a society, instead of a principle. They break that contract and thus are no longer covered by it.
What if the other party in question is of the opinion they didn’t break it, yet the other claims it has been. Who gets to decide it?
That’s a different question. However society enforces norms. Personally I would prefer some consensus seeking mechanism.
Welcome to social contract theory.