• Tlaloc_Temporal@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Having the option is not being forced. Just because some people like spicy food doesn’t mean everyone is forced to eat it.

    • merc@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      But everyone is required to tolerate people who want to have sex with children, people who want to have sex in public, people who want to eat human meat, etc. You couldn’t have laws against those things because that would be intolerant.

      • Tlaloc_Temporal@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s reasonable to conclude that some people cannot consent to some things, particularly things they don’t understand. Sex with children, animals, and adults under some kinds of intoxication fall into this category.

        Sex in public can work, if that public consents. Indeed there are some publics that do consent, usually small communities, but it does happen.

        Consumption of human flesh is theoretically A-OK, it’s the obtaining of that flesh that is difficult. The dealing of human material outside of controlled channels can lead to the killing of people for money or power, which is why it’s illegal to buy or sell organs for transplants or research. With stakes this high, any compensation can be twisted into coercion. This, plus the risk of bioaccumulation and parasites, has led the consumption of human flesh to be a taboo, although exceptions do get made in extreme circumstances. As such, if the origin of such flesh can be confirmed to be uncoerced and not used for long-term sustenence, and this can be rigorously enforced, then I have no problem with it.

        The allowing of things which may lead to disallowed things does depend on the ability of a community to understand the risks and adapt to reduce them. For example, Canada recently began practicing medically assisted dying for those who choose it, yet some doctors have already been criticised for pushing it unprompted instead of recommending treatment. I shudder to think what could happen if insurance companies could legally consider it a valid alternative.

        The issue here is that some things can create an intolerance for some rights, without violating those rights to begin with. Where the line is drawn should depend on how strictly the line can be enforced, so while historically many lines were drawn very broadly, we have stronger social technology now, and we can free up areas near those lines. Should we spend the effort to have those thinner lines is another question, and usually depends on how useful that area is; for example stem cell testing could teach us a lot, but eating human flesh is very inefficient and possibly dangerous long-term.

        If something causes intolerance, then we certainly should create laws against that intolerance. It’s usually simple to make the laws against the thing itself, but laws could be made that allow more things without allowing the intolerance. It can be a complicated matter, but one worth pursuing, otherwise everything would eventually end up outlawed.

        • merc@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          some people cannot consent to some things, particularly things they don’t understand

          But, where do you draw the line? Historically the age of consent has changed a lot. Maybe it should be that nobody under 30 can consent because their minds are still developing.

          Sex in public can work, if that public consents

          How do you determine if the public consents? What if some of the public consents and other public doesn’t?

          Consumption of human flesh is theoretically A-OK,

          According to whom?

          If something causes intolerance, then we certainly should create laws against that intolerance

          The point is, it’s all going to come down to lines a community decides based on a variety of things from religious influence, to culture, to infectious diseases, to healthcare systems, to population density, to all kinds of influences. It will be absolutely fine to be intolerant of someone who crosses one of those lines, because the community has decided that that’s where the lines are. On the other hand, it won’t be fine to be intolerant of someone who crosses what is a line for another society.

          • Tlaloc_Temporal@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            But where do you draw the line? How do you determine if the public consents?

            Here we get into the specifics of the social contract. By partaking in society, we are bound to the contract, but we also have a hand in writing this contract. Naturally, the world’s largest ongoing set of negotiations has millions of iterations, has started thousands of wars, and will never end. Yet, by choosing more reasonable terms, more people will be content with the contract, leading to larger more stable societies. How we choose where to draw the lines is of course central to this issue. This is one of the social technologies I mentioned; as we gain a better understanding of humans, systems, societies, and legislation, we can negotiate a contract based on more universally applicable facts, stronger predictions, and more objective reasoning. There will always be grey areas though, and that’s why it’s a negotiation.

            If you sup with someone negotiating a change, you admit that the change means less than the meal to you. If that change is to accept pineapple pizza as undeserving of ridicule, then meh, ridiculing a pizza topping isn’t as important as sharing that meal. But if that change is to eat poor children, then you have valued the lives of children, classism, and unrestricted cannibalism at less than a meal. You could contest this change to make up the difference, but that is a mountain and a half to talk your way out of, depending on how fervently they support it. Anything short ends up being approval, which is why you don’t sup with people who want to take away people’s rights.

            Consumption of human flesh is theoretically A-OK,

            According to whom?

            According to me, but I invite you to find anything intrisically wrong about the consumption of human flesh by humans. Not closely related problems like encouraging killing or an instinctual revulsion, purely the consumption and it’s intrisic completely unavoidable consequences. Genuinely curious.

            • merc@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              By partaking in society, we are bound to the contract, but we also have a hand in writing this contract.

              Which means we can advocate for things that cross the line if we think the line is drawn in the wrong place. This would be called “being intolerant”. Therefore this solution to the paradox of tolerance is bullshit.

              • Tlaloc_Temporal@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                The paradox of intolerance is a property of rules, and a recommendation on how to write them. It simply says that tolerance cannot be enforced absolutely; some intolerance is necessary to maintain tolerance.

                It’s the same idea as “If you wish for peace, prepare for war”. Absolue peacfulness only allows the violent to perform violence easier, so some violence needs to be possible to maintain peace.

                Lastly, intolerance isn’t simply advocating for new rules. It’s not intolerant to say you want to walk to work, or you wish education was free for everyone. Intolerance is an existential problem; “homeless people should not be tolerated in the city”, “immigrants should not be tolerated in this country”, “homosexuals should not exist”. The paradox of intolerance says that these ideas should not be allowed to exist, and that permitting their existence directly threatens the existence of others.

                Put into social contract terms; “Advocating for someone to be excluded from the contract is just breaking the contract with extra steps”. Same idea, no paradox.