Asklemmy

43945 readers

626 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

118

What is your favorite paradox or conundrum? I am partial to can god kill god? (lemmy.world)

submitted 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) by Daft_ish@lemmy.world to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

291 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The monotheistic all powerful one.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[+] MxM111@kbin.social -12 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I do not see any paradox there. Paradox is something contradictory. All your statements are true and do not contradict to each other.

[–] Bizarroland@kbin.social 20 points 8 months ago (1 children)

The phrase, "You have to be intolerant to be tolerant" doesn't sound like a contradiction to you?

[+] MxM111@kbin.social -8 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Sounds like contradiction, yes, but it is just incorrect phrase. You do not have to be intolerant to be tolerant.

The society have to be intolerant to intolerance to be stable, not to be tolerant or intolerant.

[–] Bizarroland@kbin.social 10 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

I think you're missing the point. The question is about a tolerant society.

Regardless of if the society itself is stable, for the society to be tolerant it must be intolerant of the intolerant, and therefore a tolerant society must be intolerant.

[–] Timwi@kbin.social 1 points 8 months ago

By treating tolerance as a binary (it's either completely present or completely absent) you've removed your argument very far from reality. The goal in reality is to be as tolerant as possible, and the most tolerant stable state simply has some (limited) amount of (very specific) intolerance in it.