My religion says I have a duty to discriminate and condemn such behavior. Your religion says you shouldn't discriminate against other people's behavior and convictions. You don't have a case against bigoted Christians.
Ah we are also committed to not tolerate intolerance. I think your religion makes no sense but respect your right to believe it. I think you're intolerance is abhorrent and will fight it to my last dying breath
I know about it. I've studied logic and epistemology. Calling it a paradox doesn't stop it from being self-defeating and logically fallacious.
The conundrum refers to the real-life application of that principle and the pragmatic problems arising from it, which are assessed post-factum. As far as deductive formal logic goes, it's contradictory.
My religion says I have a duty to discriminate and condemn such behavior. Your religion says you shouldn't discriminate against other people's behavior and convictions. You don't have a case against bigoted Christians.
Ah we are also committed to not tolerate intolerance. I think your religion makes no sense but respect your right to believe it. I think you're intolerance is abhorrent and will fight it to my last dying breath
That makes you intolerant also. It's a self-contradictory position. Talk about making no sense.
"I'm committed to pacifism, but I will wage war against any warmonger till my dying breath".
Read up on Popper's paradox for more on this conundrum. We're not the first two to discuss this
I know about it. I've studied logic and epistemology. Calling it a paradox doesn't stop it from being self-defeating and logically fallacious.
The conundrum refers to the real-life application of that principle and the pragmatic problems arising from it, which are assessed post-factum. As far as deductive formal logic goes, it's contradictory.