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.
Violence. Not opinions.
There are plenty of people that every person in the world would see others as not living up to their own values and morals if everyone knew everything about everyone. There will always be people you can’t understand and have a difficult time communicating with because you’re coming from such different points of view. You both have the same right to live, and to be honest about your views and feelings and have you perceive the world.
That’s what tolerance is. It’s not a simple and easy thing because it means accepting that people who strongly believe things total opposite of what you strongly believe have the same right to exist and be honest that you do.
The people who break that for calling on others to be killed, or beaten, or chased out of society, those are the people displaying actual intolerance.
The entire point of what he said and goes on to say in many other writings is that people who insist on violence and can not be reasoned with are the intolerance that society can not tolerate.
Go sit and actually read his works. Don’t bastardize a blurb over and over and try to sit there saying I’m the one being disingenuous and misunderstanding the man.
Goodness, if someone quotes that part of his work again I’m going to lose it. He literally says the line is rational discussion because if they won’t do that it might lead to violence.
I already said I’m not interested in debating the nature or role of tolerance at the moment.
He literally says the line is rational discussion because if they won’t do that it might lead to violence.
No, he does not. You’re misinterpreting the word “may” used in this context and time period.
I can see very clearly why you’re not interested in having an actual conversation about tolerance… while you are literally in a thread about tolerance.
Your last reply you tried to call me disingenuous and say that I was projecting my beliefs. Instead of bastardizing Poppers works chatting with AI to try to make yourself look as if you have an education on the topic, I suggest signing up for a few classes.
If nothing else, at least get the AI to explain your misunderstanding of the word “may” in that single little snippet of text you are so in love with before you bother replying again.
I can see very clearly why you’re not interested in having an actual conversation about tolerance… while you are literally in a thread about tolerance
I thought we were in a thread about a popper quote? Because I’m pretty sure I replied to someone saying it was misinterpreted.
I said your phrasing was disingenuous because you characterized the position of people you disagree with in a dismissive fashion. I said you were projecting your opinion because instead of saying “I disagree with this person” you chose to say “they are actually saying what I think and are just generally misunderstood”.
Violence. Not opinions.
There are plenty of people that every person in the world would see others as not living up to their own values and morals if everyone knew everything about everyone. There will always be people you can’t understand and have a difficult time communicating with because you’re coming from such different points of view. You both have the same right to live, and to be honest about your views and feelings and have you perceive the world.
That’s what tolerance is. It’s not a simple and easy thing because it means accepting that people who strongly believe things total opposite of what you strongly believe have the same right to exist and be honest that you do.
The people who break that for calling on others to be killed, or beaten, or chased out of society, those are the people displaying actual intolerance.
The entire point of what he said and goes on to say in many other writings is that people who insist on violence and can not be reasoned with are the intolerance that society can not tolerate.
Go sit and actually read his works. Don’t bastardize a blurb over and over and try to sit there saying I’m the one being disingenuous and misunderstanding the man.
Goodness, if someone quotes that part of his work again I’m going to lose it. He literally says the line is rational discussion because if they won’t do that it might lead to violence.
I already said I’m not interested in debating the nature or role of tolerance at the moment.
No, he does not. You’re misinterpreting the word “may” used in this context and time period.
I can see very clearly why you’re not interested in having an actual conversation about tolerance… while you are literally in a thread about tolerance.
Your last reply you tried to call me disingenuous and say that I was projecting my beliefs. Instead of bastardizing Poppers works chatting with AI to try to make yourself look as if you have an education on the topic, I suggest signing up for a few classes.
If nothing else, at least get the AI to explain your misunderstanding of the word “may” in that single little snippet of text you are so in love with before you bother replying again.
I thought we were in a thread about a popper quote? Because I’m pretty sure I replied to someone saying it was misinterpreted.
I said your phrasing was disingenuous because you characterized the position of people you disagree with in a dismissive fashion. I said you were projecting your opinion because instead of saying “I disagree with this person” you chose to say “they are actually saying what I think and are just generally misunderstood”.