Comment by pritambaral | Hacker News Reader

Comment by pritambaral | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> You are effectively arguing that ...

I am not arguing that, you are. Please, try not to put words in others' mouths.

I mean, of course according to ISIS ending the lives of "kaffirs" is rightful and correct. There is no question whether they think so or not. Their position on it is clear. But even within this position, it is clear that killing kaffirs is intolerant of their life. Even ISIS would agree. As would I. Where they and I differ is in whether this intolerance is 'right' or 'wrong'.

'Intolerance' does not automatically equate to 'right' or 'wrong'.

The state of Alabama can choose to be both intolerant and be okay with it, even call it 'the right thing'. That does not stop them from being intolerant of women's rights.

Neither 'Right' nor 'wrong' automatically equate to 'intolerant' or 'tolerant'.

> If A stabbing B is a crime and thereby - according to your reasoning - "intolerant"

Again, please, stop putting words in others' mouths. I make no comparison (or "reasoning", as you claim I did) between 'stabbing' and 'tolerance'. I merely point that a subsequent negative action by a victim does not make the concept of the negative action "abstract".

You are going in a circular argument.

Your original words were: "The pro-life position of forcing women to not have abortions is indeed intolerant of their rights."

See, you equate "intolerance" with defending to violate someone "rights".

Obviously in place where the "rights" are different - i.e. Alabama - then it changes who is the intolerant one. In Alabama, according to your original comment, the intolerant are the pro choice ones: according to your reasoning, not to mine.

Of course that you could just accept the obvious, that the concept of intolerance is clearly abstract, and finish the discussion....

> ... who is the intolerant one.

One party being intolerant does not prevent the another party from being intolerant. As I have tried to show repeatedly, multiple parties can be intolerant.

> In Alabama, according to your original comment, the intolerant are the pro choice ones: according to your reasoning, not to mine.

Expectant women in Alabama do not suddenly lose their rights when Alabama declares 'fetus' = 'child'. Alabama instead chooses to override women's rights and place fetal rights above it.

> Of course that you could just accept the obvious, that the concept of intolerance is clearly abstract, and finish the discussion

I could repeat this statement back to you, with the only change being my claim instead of yours, and it would mean just as much as it means when you say this. But that would be discourteous and discouraging of discourse, so I will try yet again, one final time:

The concept of intolerance is not any more "abstract" than "the concept of harm".

>As I have tried to show repeatedly, multiple parties can be intolerant.

Re-read your original comments then:

"The pro-life position of forcing women to not have abortions is indeed intolerant of their rights."

"Forcing people to abort would be intolerant of life or religion, but that is not what abortionists do or are."

Now understand that abortionists are "intolerant of life" as the original GP stated, because they are intolerant of the children/fetus rights, not of the woman deciding not to abort (I think that is obvious to anyone... but here I am having to write it down).

Your all argument was that woman have those rights, but children/fetus don't, therefore forcing woman to conceive was against their rights, and, you concluded, intolerant.

I confronted you with realities where the children/fetus rights are higher than those of women (i.e. Alabama) and by your reasoning, that changes who is the intolerant one.

> The concept of intolerance is not any more "abstract" than "the concept of harm".

Harm is also an abstract concept of course, I don't understand where you want to go with that sentence.

You keep saying things like "... who is the intolerant one." in response to my point that the position or capability of intolerance is not limited to only "one" party. "Multiple" vs. "one".

> Harm is also an abstract concept of course, I don't understand where you want to go with that sentence.

Harm is often quite real. Not unlike intolerance. That was my point.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com