Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The criterion isn't "am I successfully countering this idea with my arguments", the criterion is "are the people I disagree with engaging in rational argument". In other words, the only condition under which you're allowed to dispense with argument and resort to force is if your opponents have resorted to force first.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Then you simply say they are not engaging in rational argument. Conspiracy theorists do not engage in rational argument so I am free to dispense with argument if their rhetoric is sufficiently damaging. It reads quite clearly, what aren't you understanding?

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

the only condition under which you're allowed to dispense with argument and resort to force is if your opponents have resorted to force first.

I'm not sure if you genuinely have bad reading comprehension or if you're trying to do a thing where you argue in a dumb way to show that you can frustrate anyone into giving up on argument as a means for resolving disputes. Although I will say that leftoids have already developed their loophole around Popper's criterion by reasoning that sufficiently distasteful ideas are in and of themselves violence and hence justify responding with violent force, so it's all pointless anyway other than to point out the illiterate pretensions of redditors.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Is this really the reading comprehension level of the average rightoid? There is nothing in that paragraph that says that literal force is required for there to be a response of force to intolerance.

We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law

You really have to be fricking dumb to not understand that preaching intolerance is not an act of physical force right?

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

This is immediately following a lengthy argument whereby Popper specifies the necessary level of intolerance to trigger suppression:

that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols

I.E. "intolerance" here should not be read in a vague sense but specifically means "people who won't tolerate hearing a contrary argument".

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

It very clearly states that they "MAY" do these things, not that any single one is a requirement. There would need to be context outside this paragraph to inform any further. Hence, that paragraph does not supply the contradiction you believe it does.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Link copied to clipboard
Action successful!
Error, please refresh the page and try again.