Anonymous #1 4w

that's when the shunning begins

5

Anonymous #3 4w

it absolutely is. both to their victims and to them in the long run. the sooner they change the sooner their life will improve beyond what it was when their terrible behavior was tolerated. speaking of, you should research the paradox of tolerance

6

Anonymous #4 4w

quakers are based

5

Anonymous OP 4w

I have read Popper and I don’t feel that agents are capable of not tolerating intolerance without jeopardizing the tolerance of that society in itself. Please read Rawls’ A Theory of Injustice (1971), specifically pages 219-221

-1

Anonymous #4 4w

Puritans hated the quakers

1

Anonymous #7 4w

Yes its the application of puritan intolerance of differing opinions/burn-at-the-stake type of thought, with the philosophy and blind acceptance of quakers. You will love and tolerate or you will be killed

-1

Anonymous #4 4w

I fear you have misunderstood Quaker theology

6

Anonymous landtrust 4w

you should write a thesis answering that exact question

6

Anonymous #3 4w

if you were a bar owner your bar would be known as the nazi hang out

4

Anonymous the_shunned_one 4w

paradox of tolerance. should be easy enough to infer via deductive reasoning that the intolerant people would be excluded from acceptance for all... that is for anybody with sufficient intellectual capacity and critical thinking skills. respectfully

10

Anonymous OP 4w

So what your premises that lead you to this conclusion since you are using deductive reasoning? Basically prove it as you are making the claim. Also how do you objectively determine who is and isn’t included as obviously not everyone is. For example some Christians are not tolerant of gay beliefs and some gays are not tolerant of Christian beliefs. Whose should you tolerate and make an objective case. Also am an atheist btw but both are protected classes so legally and morally not clear.

0

Anonymous #9 4w

^are

-1

Anonymous #9 4w

Nobody said deductive reasoning led to this conclusion. They said you should use deductive reasoning and critical thinking to know (very obviously) that "shaming people who don't practice... acceptance for all" means that intolerant people are excluded. You're obtuse asf

5

Anonymous OP 4w

Bestie you’re saying a whole lot of nothing so confidently. How does deductive reasoning have anything to do with it? I would love you to prove your claim using deductive reasoning. I think you’re trying to go away from the original argument and my claim being that not everyone accepts everyone, and if it were the case that we were to shun everyone who isn’t accepting of ALL people as you claimed, our society would crumble

-1

Anonymous #9 4w

Your question is intentionally vague. I also find it pathetic that you're trying to conflate being homophobic with being against a religion where the overwhelmingly dominant social position is homophobic. You're dense as hell and deeply intellectually dishonest

2

Anonymous the_shunned_one 4w

"A mornan who believes black people are lesser, cursed individuals doesn't accept black people. A black person doesn't accept mormans because the dominant position amongst them is anti-black. Who should be accepted?" see how fucking stupid that sounds?

3

Anonymous OP 4w

Logically if you were to not accept a child predator, or if you’re not accepting of Christians, or billionaires, or cheaters, or liars, or frat bros, or your parents, or any single person that goes against your standards of acceptance, then YOU would be getting shunned because your claim is so absolutist. Just don’t use “kindness and acceptance with all people”. It’s crazy you think all people are even entitled to kindness. NO ONE is entitled to that, especially someone like a crazy ex

0

Anonymous the_shunned_one 4w

For example. That doesn’t mean YOU should be shunned just because you don’t accept ALL people

0

Anonymous the_shunned_one 4w

You're trying to act like religious/ideological intolerance is the same as intolerance of intolerant ideologies, which is just dodo brained behavior. You're obviously just reactionary and oppositional and I fear this is another win for the "everybody is 12 now" theory

2

Anonymous #10 4w

I would highly recommend you take a social deviance class to understand the hypocrisy of this entire argument. I think you’re purposefully ignoring our points. #9 made a GREAT point. OP was claiming deductive reasoning will help to infer that intolerant people will be excluded from acceptance for all. But they’ve yet to show us how deductive reasoning does that and nearly everyone isn’t accepting of someone in some capacity. Y’all are being absolutist asf and need some relativism in your bones

1

Anonymous the_shunned_one 4w

do you think homophobes and gay people are the same in their intolerance of one another? do you believe white suprematists and non-white people are the same in their intolerance of one another? abelists and disabled people? yes or no please

3

Anonymous #9 4w

what was the point in saying "some christians are not tolerant of gay beliefs"? why not just say homophobes? the answer is that you're trying to obfuscate the homophobia. not all christians are homophobic. we can simply call them what they are: homophobes. with that adjustment the example becomes "some homophobes are not tolerant of gay beliefs and some gays are not tolerant of homophobes" which has a much clearer answer. intellectually dishonest and unintelligent, you are

0

Anonymous OP 4w

You’re trying to compare the intolerance of people to one another. I’ve never claimed that one group has more intolerance than another, what I am claiming is that OP’s argument is absolutist in that they’re claiming people who aren’t accepting and kind towards ALL people should be shunned. Bestie you’re reaching for an argument that isn’t there

1

Anonymous OP 4w

So some homophobes and some gays, due to them not being accepting of ALL people, would all need to be shunned by OP’s logic. Y’all I don’t think you’re understanding my argument is on relativism and how you word your arguments. It’s not healthy to view the world from an absolutist lense. If you want to argue that homophobes should be shunned because their intolerance has a deeper effect than gays intolerance does, that’d be an entirely different argument than the one originally claimed

1

Anonymous the_shunned_one 4w

Which to make things so absolutely clear, I’m arguing against the original claim. Not this side claim being spawned from no where to distract from OP’s claim

1

Anonymous the_shunned_one 4w

try again. a simple yes or no will do, please and thank you

0

Anonymous the_shunned_one 4w

This is just the tolerance paradox.

2

Anonymous the_shunned_one 4w

“According to op, we should shun people who aren’t accepting of all people.” Okay well since OP is saying they should shun people clearly OP isn’t “accepting of all people”. But what OP really meant was “accepting of the traits that people have, that they cannot change, and accepting of people’s beliefs assuming they do not hurt anyone.” Tolerating intolerance is the one thing I won’t tolerate type shit

2

Anonymous mushy.the.mushroom 4w

thank you. intolerance of intolerance is not the same as intolerance of people it should be obvious to anybody who's engaging to understand and not just engaging to argue with masturbatory philosophies and semantics

1

Anonymous the_shunned_one 4w

and no i'm not comparing the intolerance of people. that's why you need to answer the question. it's obviously "no, they're not the same" and the follow up would be that's because one group is intolerant of people and the other is intolerant of an ideological intolerance. but ofc you don't engage in good faith. you're just here to argue and stroke your inflated ego. it's pathetic

1

Anonymous #7 4w

Lets hear it then

-1

Anonymous #4 4w

quakers are explicitly non-violent and peaceful, and oppose capital punishment how tf did you arrive at "... burn-at-the-stake type of thought..." and "... or you will be killed"??? dodo brain shit

6

Anonymous #4 4w

another w for the "everybody is 12 now" theory

8

Anonymous OP 3w

Lol im saying you are taking parts from both. But you know that

1

Anonymous #4 3w

more dodo brain nonsense. ignorance never tires

1