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.
But why is tolerance always good to begin with (except towards intolerance)? Why should I choose being tolerant over being intolerant? What makes your position and its dogma (no intolerance allowed) normative and the standard for judging all other worldviews?
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.
In our current reality it's how i live and believe. I work as a drug counselor and respect sex orientation and religion, but need to act on bullying
But why is tolerance always good to begin with (except towards intolerance)? Why should I choose being tolerant over being intolerant? What makes your position and its dogma (no intolerance allowed) normative and the standard for judging all other worldviews?