Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
While I hate to side with BoLevi in... well, anything, you don't appear understand what a "moral issue" is.
All "moral issue" means is that there is a normative statement about behaviour in play. A social contract is a moral issue. If your position has the word "should" in it - if you're suggesting that someone should participate in a social contract, or should be "accepting/tolerating/including everyone", you're talking about a moral issue.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoLevi
You are conflating a number of different concepts. Liberal ideals actually require one to be tolerant of intolerant ideas and even statements. It's when ideas and statements turn into actions that cause harm that we can say the line has been crossed.
There is no tolerance paradox - it's a myth. It is only confusing to people who confuse statements/ideas with actions.
|
Your entire argument is that we are required to tolerate the intolerance of others, lest we become intolerant. That's the tolerance paradox.
Your purported style of liberalism is exactly what the "enlightened" separate but equal crowd believed in response to the civil rights movement. Which was really good at maintaining the racist status quo.
You know this bigoted belief is indefensible, so instead you turn the argument around and defend someone's right to have an indefensible belief. The only explanation is you feel more offended by the LGBTQ+ community than by the bigotry on display.
Claiming there is zero connection between high profile people displaying bigotry and the subsequent actions of other people who feel emboldened to act against that marginalized group shows you aren't paying attention.