I generally really like the tenants, but tenant 4 seems to violate the paradox of tolerance. I feel like it should be not include those who wish to use their freedoms (of offence and otherwise) to abuse and limit the freedoms of others. Otherwise, we won’t really have freedom at all.
I think you are misunderstanding the fourth tenant. It means that you are free to cause offense to others so long as that offense doesn’t infringe on anyone else’s freedoms. As soon as you infringe on someone else’s freedoms, you have given up your claim to your freedoms and should expect reprisal in some form.
That’s fair, I did interpret the second half of the tenant unfavorably. I guess ‘willfully and unjustly’ is too strong a qualifier for my tastes. I think ignorance powers a large portion of the world, and ignorant bigotry is a natural extension of that.
The paradox of tolerance has best been explained to me not as a paradox, but as a social contract. In the contract, all parties respect eachother as they are, but when intolerance enters and the contract is broken, you are no longer bound by the contract, therefore you are now allowed to be intolerant back.
Im a conditional pacifist, in the event of me being attacked i will defend myself to the best of my abilities and to whatever force is justified.
Do you feel like that is completely covered by the 4th tenant? I guess I’m worried about the use of social ‘norms’ and pressure to conform with what others want in order to force those that don’t conform to what is considered normal by the general populace.
I understand I’m being very finicky here but I think when presenting a list of tenants, laws, commandments, etc. the details really matter.
I didn’t know freedom meant people doing stuff that sucks. I was thinking more of a “choose your own cellphone carrier” thing.
I have an idea. Every time there’s a disagreement about what forms of expression count as “limiting the freedoms of others,” we’ll call you up and have you make a ruling. Of course that’s a lot of work for one person, so let’s erect arbitrary, temporary, economically limited, pseudo-representative democracy in order to elect a committee of people responsible for those decisions. Of course we’ll need a way to quickly identify them as the special people ─ those whose senses of morality are elevated above all the rest of us rabble ─ maybe some tiny hats? We’ll make sure to pick a shape of hat that hasn’t yet been used to propel a civilization towards genocide.
I generally really like the tenants, but tenant 4 seems to violate the paradox of tolerance. I feel like it should be not include those who wish to use their freedoms (of offence and otherwise) to abuse and limit the freedoms of others. Otherwise, we won’t really have freedom at all.
I think you are misunderstanding the fourth tenant. It means that you are free to cause offense to others so long as that offense doesn’t infringe on anyone else’s freedoms. As soon as you infringe on someone else’s freedoms, you have given up your claim to your freedoms and should expect reprisal in some form.
That’s fair, I did interpret the second half of the tenant unfavorably. I guess ‘willfully and unjustly’ is too strong a qualifier for my tastes. I think ignorance powers a large portion of the world, and ignorant bigotry is a natural extension of that.
The paradox of tolerance has best been explained to me not as a paradox, but as a social contract. In the contract, all parties respect eachother as they are, but when intolerance enters and the contract is broken, you are no longer bound by the contract, therefore you are now allowed to be intolerant back. Im a conditional pacifist, in the event of me being attacked i will defend myself to the best of my abilities and to whatever force is justified.
I 100% agree with your assessment.
Do you feel like that is completely covered by the 4th tenant? I guess I’m worried about the use of social ‘norms’ and pressure to conform with what others want in order to force those that don’t conform to what is considered normal by the general populace.
I understand I’m being very finicky here but I think when presenting a list of tenants, laws, commandments, etc. the details really matter.
I have an idea. Every time there’s a disagreement about what forms of expression count as “limiting the freedoms of others,” we’ll call you up and have you make a ruling. Of course that’s a lot of work for one person, so let’s erect arbitrary, temporary, economically limited, pseudo-representative democracy in order to elect a committee of people responsible for those decisions. Of course we’ll need a way to quickly identify them as the special people ─ those whose senses of morality are elevated above all the rest of us rabble ─ maybe some tiny hats? We’ll make sure to pick a shape of hat that hasn’t yet been used to propel a civilization towards genocide.
edit: I’ve got it! Armbands.
Oh yay! Can I have proportional representative electoral system too? That would be a big improvement over the system I am currently subject to.
How many people live there?