Wiki - The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually ceased or destroyed by the intolerant. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly self-contradictory idea that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance.

  • Rivalarrival
    1·
    1 year ago

    It is, indeed, a broad question.

    Is it “physical violence” when a Nazi shoots a Jew?

    Is it “physical violence” when a Jew shoots a Nazi?

    What if the Jew in question were David Berkowitz, and the Nazi in question were Oskar Schindler?

      • Rivalarrival
        1·
        1 year ago

        Depends on the context?!?

        Ok, let’s back up a little further: what does “objective” mean?

        • LemmysMum@lemmy.world
          1·
          1 year ago

          Yes. Depends on the context.

          Objective
          /əbˈdʒɛktɪv/
          adjective

          (of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

          So,remove your feelings and provide the facts I’m requesting so we can get to the objective logical endpoint.

          • Rivalarrival
            1·
            1 year ago

            Thanks for clarifying.

            The Jew is shooting the Nazi because the Jew believes the Nazi is causing harm to the Jew.

            The Nazi is shooting the Jew because the Nazi believes the Jew is causing harm to the Nazi.

            • LemmysMum@lemmy.world
              1·
              1 year ago

              The Jew is shooting the Nazi because the Jew believes the Nazi is causing harm to the Jew.

              Is the Nazi causing the Jew harm beyond the Jew’s personal belief?

              The Nazi is shooting the Jew because the Nazi believes the Jew is causing harm to the Nazi.

              Is the Jew causing the Nazi harm beyond the Nazi’s personal belief?

              • Rivalarrival
                1·
                1 year ago

                I am not sure what exactly you are asking here. I will clarify that these are two separate scenarios: there are a total of four people.

                The Nazi is perforating the Jew’s body with a bullet. There is no question that the Jew is suffering injury from the Nazi’s bullet.

                The Jew is perforating the Nazi’s body with a bullet. There is no question that the Nazi is suffering injury from the Jew’s bullet.

                • LemmysMum@lemmy.world
                  1·
                  1 year ago

                  Yes, I understand the scenario, but the context of intent changes everything.

                  Let’s agree that it’s all “physical violence” as defined as: they are both physically damaging each other and causing harm.

                  But depending on the context of intent that “physical violence” breaks down into two more nuanced types of physical violence: Defensive Violence and Offensive Violence.

                  Defensive Violence can be logically justified, Offensive Violence cannot.

                  Edit: If I had answered your question as to what is an objective harmful act, I could have been more specific and clarified Offensive Violence.

                  • Rivalarrival
                    1·
                    1 year ago

                    Generally speaking, I would agree on your characterization of violence.

                    However, I am required to suspend my own feelings and opinions on these scenarios. I realized that I cannot actually answer your last question. I can objectively state that both the Nazi and the Jew were injured, but I am forbidden from saying whether either injury constitutes “harm”.

                    I think I can state that the shooter-Nazi believes his force is defensive, while the injured Jew believes that force was offensive.

                    I think I can state that the shooter-Jew believes his force is defensive, while the injured Nazi believes that same force was offensive.