[xg15]

The paradox of tolerance isn't wrong, but it's also invoked awfully quickly in the last years, often by people who weren't tolerant to begin with.

I'd at least like to know who defines who is a "Pluralist" and who is a "Terrorist".

Also: The paradox of tolerance can legitimately be used to call intolerant behaviors of individuals. When you use it to define entire population groups as "intolerant", and therefore not worth of protection, you have joined the side that you ostensibly want to fight against.

[throwaway290]

You can define who is tolerant and who is not literally from the definition of the word. It's not a problem.

> When you use it to define entire population groups as "intolerant"

There are suitable cases, eg. if you are in jihad or other extremist sect where part of ideology is intolerance

[pmarreck]

> When you use it to define entire population groups as "intolerant", and therefore not worth of protection, you have joined the side that you ostensibly want to fight against.

Suppose there was an organization that had written by-laws which were not permitted to be changed but which demanded adherence (on pain of death), including never leaving the organization. Also suppose that most of the members of that organization collectively decided not to adhere to all of its rules (some were considered incompatible with "progress")... but some continued to. And others sometimes began to, but only under stress, because the by-laws book (which, again, cannot be changed, on pain of death) made NO clarification on scope of application, and people were free to interpret the by-laws literally.

Why would you not judge that organization, given that its by-laws are its core? Why would you make special exceptions for ANY organization (or its members), here?

I mean, objectively-speaking, if we weren't reflexively defending the org we're of course discussing, it sounds like a dystopian science-fiction novel. (If I'm being honest, it sounds A LOT like Warhammer, actually.)

Here's a fun thing to read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naskh_(tafsir)

"With few exceptions, Islamic revelations do not state which Quranic verses or hadith have been abrogated, and Muslim exegetes and jurists have disagreed over which and how many hadith and verses of the Quran are recognized as abrogated, with estimates varying from less than ten to over 500."

Also note that naskh tends to recognize later passages as overriding earlier passages. Guess which ones are the more violent ones...

See a problem, yet? Please don't gaslight me into not seeing one.

[HPsquared]

"Sovereign is he who decides on the exception."

[pmarreck]

Exceptions are hypocrisy, by definition.

If you need exceptions, abandon the rule, because it is no longer a rule, it is just a discriminatingly applied proscription.