throwaway156503

At that point, it doesn't sound like freedom of speech is the problem. Rather, this sounds like conspiracy to promote and further the attempts of mass murder for the intent to cause terror.

That being said, I grew up reading TOTSE, which might by this conversation's context in today's world, also sound like a source of the same.

I see. I was not aware this was a quote. Thanks for taking the time to point it out to me.

Hmm, yes, you're right. Thanks for the example. Perhaps further arguments could be made about what constitutes peace among individuals and what infringes on those definitions.

I believe we see scenarios today in which one's definition of peace infringes on another's.

What do people mean when they say, "truth has a liberal bias"? I don't understand this.

Edit: My intent is not to be facetious. I don't understand what this phrase means.

This claim to logic or scientific reasoning in the face of not tolerating intolerance seems flawed and, to me, does not serve as a meaningful replacement for the subject of morality:

Imagine you have a child, who is not yours, screaming in your ear at the nearby supermarket. You do not tolerate it. You are intolerant of it.

At face value, with the paradox of tolerance in the form of "society must be intolerant of intolerance," you would need to hold to the position that society should not be tolerant of your intolerance to children screaming in your ear.

You'd need to accept that it's acceptable for children to scream in your ear.