I would posit the opposite to give outlet to such violence.

I like a big show.

Agreed, I began by merely pointing out something that I assumed was a typo or unintentional mistake, didn't really expect it to go any further than that

Just wait until the author discovers government and organized religion…

>As I say in the article, Popper restricted the tolerance paradox to very authoritarian movements.

And? There's extremely authoritarian and pervasive elements of our culture—like conservative Christianity. The blog post even opens with a defence of a Christian who want to impose their religion on others.

My faith demands abortion when it is appropriate. How can defending against a substantive attack against the free practice of my faith be intolerance without first applying that measure to initial attack?

A person can express anything they want—it doesn't mean people are going to like them. Belonging to organizations is a privilege reserved for those who play well with others.

Finally, some philosophy.

Science and Ethics both lie beneath the heading of philosophy - science is the method philosophers developed to show their work.

You can apply the scientific method to ethical questions if you'd like to find an answer that way - syllogistic argumentation is how it's done in both practices.

(Not that I'd trust a Rand scholar with an opinion on either, mind.)

And of course the vegan sock puppet accounts really went into overdrive on that now removed factory farming thread. Really looks bad when you get caught evading the post time outs, vote manipulating, and generally sock puppeting to harass people.

The accusations that eating meat is rape (yea one of the socks kept harping on this) and endlessly harassing people with it was sure something, or the lack of a retort to the mirror issue of abortion when a fetus has the potential to be a thinking human.

I'll edit this with my closing point since I decided to write up something seriously discussing it with one of the not-socks-puppets.

My last comment:

As someone who went through severe depression, having a wide variety of tasty food was one of the things that made that period of my life survivable (60-70+ hour work weeks month after month). Part of that was my own financial position being good enough to afford the luxury, and part of that was the ease of availability of that variety of food including meats.

Imagine telling a poor farmer picking strawberries all day (not me for the record) he can't have Al Pastor tacos when he gets home because pork is now exclusively the domain of the rich because we've outlawed efficient means of production of it like factory farms? He's just supposed to man up and eat his soylent? That's cruel on a level far beyond anything we do to the livestock because that animal can actually consider his place in the universe and how much it sucks.

Edit: and to retort to the "slaughterhouses are traumatic for the workers" argument that's been brought up in these comments: did you know there's only one way to skin a cat well? Veteranarians going through training have to practice skinning animals (among other trainings) to get over their revulsion to it and become desensitized to how horrible it is. It's the same for human doctors in their residency, a good friend had to tell a woman screaming at her that she was going to die in the next few days. They have to see horrible horrible shit to learn and perform their job. Trauma sucks, support structures for the workers are important. The thing is the workers actually internalize that trauma, it's part of being human, meanwhile you give a factory pig a corpse of its fellow and it will chow down on it, completely ignorant of whatever moral and ethical quandaries you try to ascribe to the animal.

Edit2: if your argument relies on comparing livestock to oppressing an other I don't care about your argument because it's based on a moralistic pretense that an animal is in the same league of consideration as a person. I'd rather we fully mechanized the slaughterhouses so less humans are involved personally.

I can't give you specific answers, but past a certain point there are lots of scholars and teachers about whom you would be more likely to find secondhand accounts or references rather than original sources. It's also not uncommon to have only fragments of a person's teachings.

Like Laozi, some of the famous ancient scholars and teachers may have never existed. Like Socrates, the ones who did exist might not have existed in a form we would recognize. Keep in mind that even Shakespeare from less than 600 years ago is mostly a mystery to us, despite being the foundation of English literature and theater.

Where's the artistic progress in garbage collection?!

There are a lot of empty words in the article as it relies on a perceived stereotype of what it is means to be "liberal".

Identifying people using their "Faith" to argue against "XYZ" does not fully try to understand what their real fears or concerns are.

Religion just like optimism (or hope) can cut off critical thinking and become an excuse to not think too deeply about death.

Also your own bias maybe (maybe) interfering in trying to understand the other person's opposing bias (or point of view) in any meaningful way and even relating to the other person as a fellow human being.

As I said at the begging there is a strong reliance of a perceived stereotype of what it is to be "liberal". Therefore the article maybe (Maybe) creating a straw man argument.

The Different Kinds of Straw ~ Sam O'Nella Academy ~ YouTube.

Human beings are not ants or any sort of hive.

I was listening to this talk by a British philosopher lady about “what is philosophy used for,” it was about a 26-27 min long video and she talked about the belief system & overcoming self-limiting beliefs(judgments etc). I feel like I got the link from this sub but I can’t l find it anymore nor is it in my web history, she was from university of London I think? Anyone have that link?

As a counterexample, ants and other highly successful hive insects definitely do not consider self-preservation as an ultimate value as evident in their group-benefitting sacrificial behavior.

I've never heard a good argument Ayn Rand. The position that all selflessness is antisocial comes from garbage capitalist dogma and is empathetically bankrupt.

This is classic straw man stuff. The defining thing about liberals is the diversity of ideas and opinions. Politically it makes them very vulnerable and hard to organise, but you can't lump them all together like this.

Buddhism is against hedonism as Budda recognized humans can become addicted to chasing insatiable pleasure that ultimately does not bring happiness.

Neuroscience explains that use of drugs like cocaine can stimulate the release of dopamine to bring euphoria, but once our dopamine is depleted through the abuse of drugs or any activity that brings intense pleasure, the pleasure a person gets become less and less, fueling more addiction, and in some cases depression through dopamine depletion.

What a weird tangent this took.

Thanks, I'll probably hit him with that next time he gets particularly fixated on his definition of himself.

"In answer to those philosophers who claim that no rela­tion can be established between ultimate ends or values and the facts of reality, let me stress that the fact that living entities exist and function necessitates the existence of val­ues and of an ultimate value which for any given living entity is its own life. Thus the validation of value judgments is to be achieved by reference to the facts of reality. The fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do."

From the Virtue of Selfishness by Ayn Rand.

Scientific progress in ethics? Um... what? Last I checked ethics was a sub-field of philosophy, not science. Someone hasn't been reading their Hume, apparently.

Oh, wait, its the Ayn Rand Institute (lol), that explains a lot.

(see also: Hume, David)

I fundamentally disagree that morality ethics and what should be tolerated is determined by group think. We all know the Natzis we’re wrong though their group think confirmed their ideology.

If we assume your statement though, that morality is determined by group think, who controls group think? The people with the loudest voice, the people who control media, the money, the famous. They heavily influence what the current group think mentality is and thereby determine what is moral. But this in my opinion is actually immoral, a horrible idea, and is intolerant of those who believe in absolute morality, namely the billions of religious people or maybe some agnostics who believe in absolute truth etc.

luckily what is 'tolerant' is decided by group-think like all morality and ethics are.

people do not like it but popularity and might are what decide pretty much everything for all humanity.

ok so how about conservatives and their interpretations?

you are on a philosophy sub you literally do not get to just ''one side'' this thing.

next both the paradox and ignoring it threaten society, so what is your point here? we have hard evidence of what happens when all speech is free (Nazi Germany) and what happens when no speech is free (North Korea).

conservatives sure love hierarchies and group think until the positions on the totem pole change.

frankly both conservatives and liberals are one and the same (i mean Liberalism is a conservative ideology ffs) and both seem more then happy to crush any and all peoples rights if it means they 'win'.

keep simping for the system that crushes us all (the enemy are the wealthy).

From the blog:

> David Campanale, a parliamentary candidate for the Liberal Democrats and a Christian, has been deselected following his desire to reduce abortion time limits.

>I regard this as an act of intolerance

Okay, but that would be utterly wrong.

"Running as a candidate for a political party" by definition requires agreement with the political positions of that party. That is literally a qualifying requirement for that position. If you can't support the party's platform, they should remove you as a candidate.

If you joined the Conservative party and then said you had a religious commitment to nationalizing British Airways, when they dismiss you as a candidate it wouldn't be an act of intolerance. You disqualified yourself from running as a candidate by opposing a core political position that the party stands for.

All of the examples in the blog post follow that pattern - losing some privilege because of intolerant, unprofessional or discriminatory behaviour isn't a violation of anyone's rights. It's a natural consequence of someone choosing to disqualify themselves from being able to fill a particular role.