Who, the Guardian? Fair to say all those people that claimed the Brexit vote was due to remainers not getting off their backside might want to revisit that theory. Even Jo Swinson was sent packing.Johnson's majority is so great he can disregard the nutters in the ERG and cut a softer deal - so some are saying.
Ahhhh come on Balooga, gotta love the Trumpster. Even if only for the way he's *smile* over the Dem's n the look on Pelosi's face when she just thinks about him, which must be about 24/7.Actually, won't be interesting, it'll be amusing. Much like US Politics is amusing. Struggle to understand how many Australians get so fanatical about what is happening in the States. Especially the die-hard Trumpites.
Yeah... that's what I don't get... the bit about demonstrating cause the got flogged. Same for here and America... Move on ffsAhhhh come on Balooga, gotta love the Trumpster. Even if only for the way he's ****** over the Dem's n the look on Pelosi's face when she just thinks about him, which must be about 24/7.
Something definitely weird in the world though, when BoJo gets re elected with a thumping majority n the first thing that happens is the losers start demonstrating in the streets 'coz they can't accept their mob got flogged.
Yeah... that's what I don't get... the bit about demonstrating cause the got flogged. Same for here and America... Move on ffs
The irony is that the demonstrators are from the hard left, the supposed tolerant ones...!
It is certainly ironic. You can’t claim to be tolerant if you are intolerant to the intolerant. These people aren’t tolerant. They are rude, humourless, boorish, sanctimonious and at worst, violent.Not sure why it's ironic at all. Tolerance has had to fight hard throughout history against intolerance. Being tolerant doesn't mean lying down and taking it without lube from the intolerant.
It is certainly ironic. You can’t claim to be tolerant if you are intolerant to the intolerant. These people aren’t tolerant. They are rude, humourless, boorish, sanctimonious and at worst, violent.
How can you understand how society actually operates in real life without a theory? Your statement doesn’t make sense.No, not irony at all if you understand how society actually operates in real life as opposed to purely theory.
How can you understand how society actually operates in real life without a theory? Your statement doesn’t make sense.
What is the alternative to theory? Seems you think:My statement does make sense. You just need to avoid ignoring the word 'purely'.
I don’t think it is a paradox, it is simply a matter of definition confusion. What does it mean to be tolerant? Seems that different people have different ideas of what this means. From what I can gather, to Popper, being tolerant means allowing people to use rational discourse to argue a point, whether you agreed with it or not. When people reject rational argumentation and resort to violence to resolve disputes, this would be an example of being intolerant. Popper then thinks that responding with violence in kind is also being intolerant. I think his understanding of intolerance in this instance is incorrect, hence why he called it a paradox.Read Karl Popper - link above.
I don’t think it is a paradox, it is simply a matter of definition confusion. What does it mean to be tolerant? Seems that different people have different ideas of what this means. From what I can gather, to Popper, being tolerant means allowing people to use rational discourse to argue a point, whether you agreed with it or not. When people reject rational argumentation and resort to violence to resolve disputes, this would be an example of being intolerant. Popper then thinks that responding with violence in kind is also being intolerant. I think his understanding of intolerance in this instance is incorrect, hence why he called it a paradox.
As an aside, I don’t think Popper would refer to these people as tolerant, as they don’t believe in allowing differing opinions to be heard. They actively seek to crush dissenting opinions such as through racial discrimination laws, hate crime laws, forcing quotas onto company hiring practices, shouting bigot or racist at anyone that disagrees with them, trying to shout down speakers at universities, etc.
As another aside, I think if people want to say they are tolerant, this needs to be qualified. Tolerant of what? Without this, it implies they are tolerant of everything. Qualifying what the tolerance is for then removes the contradiction when they display intolerance. I think Popper’s understanding of tolerance works well (i.e. tolerance is the act of accepting dissenting opinions that are brought forth through argumentation) but his understanding of intolerance breaks down a bit as it is not contradictory to allow dissenting opinions/arguments to be openly heard while at the same time acting in self defence to prevent someone from harming you. People can muddy the waters here with tolerance/intolerance definitions. Is it intolerant to allow someone to argue a point in their house but not your house?
You should know the risk by now!I'm sorry I asked
What is the alternative to theory? Seems you think:
part theory + part something = truth
Care to elaborate?