Horsefeathers. You (that is, society) assumed that burden on its own. It doesn't place any obligations on me. It's as if I decided to come over and mow your lawn for you. You'd probably be delighted that you didn't have to do it yourself anymore. But if, six months later, I came banging on your door and demanded that you stop allowing your kids to play in your own back yard because they were leaving toys laying around that made it harder for me to mow the grass, you'd most likely tell me to take a hike.
If you don't want to pay the cost associated with my behavior, then don't pay it. If I overdose on drugs, let me lay there and die if I don't have insurance or can't pay the bill myself if you so choose. But your actions in assuming responsibility for my debts don't give you any legitimate authority over my behavior.
This is a collection of things other people have said. I post them here from many sources,
Now, I received a comment on my last entry which I am unable to respond to in place, so I'll put a response here.
Your journal entry boils down to "intolerance of things I like is bad, but intolerance of things I don't like is okay".
You seem to be turning one thing, namely "intolerance", into many things when you say, "but intolerance of things I don't like is okay". So, in effect, you are arguing against something the journal entry never stated.
Second, your extension from one thing to many things causes you to miss the point further, and I don't think you have picked up on what the previous journal entry says (though it does so fuzzily). I will provide another few examples which adhere to the same flow and general syntax to illustrate what the entry's author is saying:
Assume destruction is evil. Now, contemplate the destruction of destruction. The naive extension of this contemplation is to arrive at the conclusion that destruction of destruction is evil.
Assume murder is evil. Now, contemplate the murder of murder. The naive extension of this contemplation is to arrive at the conclusion that murder of murder is evil.
So, where does the confusion arise? It comes from the fuzzy and ambiguous nature of human language, English in particular. In the first assumption, destruction/murder is used to refer to a real world, physical act. In the naive extension, destruction/murder is used in a way where it means something totally different. In the extension, destruction really means "stopping destruction" and murder really means "stopping murder".
Applying this same framework to the original journal entry, the author simply uses lots of words to explain that "intolerance" in the real world means one thing, and intolerance of intolerance really means "attempting to curb/stem/diminish/stop intolerance".
Now, the only other issue here is that the original entry uses the word "you", as in, "because you are intolerant, I am justified to be intolerant of you". In this way, I disagree with the author and side with the comments made in the response to the journal entry. For me to agree with the entry's author, I would have to replace "you" with "your intolerance". As intolerance of an individual is real world intolerance, and intolerance of one's intolerance really indicates an attempt to curb/stem/diminish/stop real world intolerance.
intolerance of intolerance is actually good
in fact, to meet a fundamentalist, and for them to call you intolerant, as in, hypocritically intolerant, is actually a badge of achievement
because you are not hypocritically intolerant if you are intolerant of them
because what they don't understand is that fundamentalism is true intolerance, and therefore to be intolerant of that is actually to strive in the direction of more tolerance
intolerant: "because you are not a true christian/ true muslim, i am better than you" =evil
intolerance of intolerance: "because you consider yourself better than me based on your religious bigotry, i am intolerant of you" =good
intolerance can be predicated on a number of characteristics of a person that is not intolerant in and of themselves: race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.
intolerance can also be predicated on someone else's intolerance: not tolerating their intolerance of someone because of race, religion, seuxla orientation, etc.
so you can judge any tolerance in question as to what it is opposed to. and if it is opposed to some inherently nonintolerant feature of a person, it is true intolerance. but if it is opposed to an intolerant feature of the person themselves, it is not intolerance, it is a form of tolerance, because it directed against real intolerance
"Why bother improving security when you can just pass a law enabling you to arrest or expel anybody who tries anything funny?
After all, we all know that the most dangerous elements of our society are stopped by LAWS, right?"
"If the fundamental argument for the use of the proxies and security in schools is that the students are youths, to be protected from the corruption of the internet for the very reason that they are impetuous and easily led astray at this tender stage of their life, then it's inconsistent to punish them for the failures of those measures.
Clearly, the systems exist to protect the corrupt society from idealistic youth who are not materially benefited by the society. But it's a hard sell politically.
Thus this ridiculousness."
There it is again. Some clueless fool talking about the "Information Superhighway." They don't know didley about the net. It's nothing like a superhighway. That's a rotten metaphor.
Suppose the metaphor ran in the other direction. Suppose the highways were like the net. .
A highway hundreds of lanes wide. Most with pitfalls for potholes. Privately operated bridges and overpasses. No highway patrol. A couple of rent-a-cops on bicycles with broken whistles. 500 member vigilante posses with nuclear weapons. A minimum of 237 on ramps at every intersection. No signs. Wanna get to Ensenada? Holler out the window at a passing truck to ask directions. Ad hoc traffic laws. Some lanes would vote to make use by a single-occupant-vehicle a capital offense on Monday through Friday between 7:00 and 9:00. Other lanes would just shoot you without a trial for talking on a car phone.
AOL would be a giant diesel-smoking bus with hundreds of ebola victims on board throwing dead wombats and rotten cabbage at the other cars, most of which have been assembled at home from kits. Some are built around 2.5 horsepower lawnmower engines with a top speed of nine miles an hour. Others burn nitrogylcerin and idle at 120.
No license plates. World War II bomber nose art instead. Terrifying paintings of huge teeth or vampire eagles. Bumper mounted machine guns. Flip somebody the finger on this highway and get a white phosphorus grenade up your tailpipe. Flatbed trucks cruise around with anti-aircraft missile batteries to shoot down the traffic helicopter. Little kids on tricycles with squirtguns filled with hydrochloric acid switch lanes without warning.
NO OFFRAMPS. None. Now that's the way to run an Interstate Highway system. (author unknown)
But still, this is the same kind of typical fanboi spew I'd expect from a Pilot user.
I don't know anything about physics but dude, I will get you laid. And you're probably all like, "but I'm paralyzed." Dude, you don't even know. The bitches I know don't give a fuck. I'm tellin' you man they're crazy!
Hope to hear back from you!
- Ayn Rand, "Atlas Shrugged"