6
Mastodon and free speech
(lemmy.sdf.org)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Jul 2023
6 points (100.0% liked)
Mastodon
5226 readers
2 users here now
Decentralised and open source social network.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Mind you, the second half of the text is wrong (like unironically and objectively, despite I agreeing with the second half, contradicts the first half.
No it doesn’t. There is no contradiction there. You’re talking nonsense.
Do you know how Goebbels infamously described the Weimar Republic’s attitude towards the Nazi Party?
Essentially, if you’re not familiar, Goebbels was quoted as saying something along the lines of “I have no idea why they allowed us to exist in their system and take power. It should have been obvious that as soon as we gained power, we’d use that power to dismantle the system and ban the traditional parties from politics. Anyone with half a brain would have realized that and banned us first.” Then he cackled like a witch.
Ok I made up the part about the cackle.
in what way? if it's so wrong, it should be easy for you to prove, logically.
First half is saying tolerance to the intolerant causes intolerance while the second half is saying intolerance to the intolerant causes intolerance. It is a writing error, I wasn't talking about the idea itself despite I disagreeing with it.
that's not an error by the writer, that's an error in your understanding of the text and the meaning of the word "paradox".
So he agrees with both statements? That makes him a paradox for agree with opposite ideas so.
lol, no. of course not.
I understand what the text tried to say and I disagree but I want to point out the writing itself is wrong and not the writer ideas. If you try to re-read the text you can notice the writing unintentionally implies different things despite being supposed to be the same.
[X} DOUBT
incorrect. you simply fail to comprehend it. how unfortunate.
you're seeing what you wish to.
If you insist to trying tricking yourself that I was exposing an idea and not pointing out the errors in the text composition, why didn't you just corrected the text and said you disagree to then go do your life things? I mean, it's easier to forcing yourself to not see the obvious.
i find it much less likely that everyone who disagrees with you is wrong, and that you simply fail to grasp the clear logic of something that you happen to disagree with and choose to lash out at me with insults rather than to admit you were wrong.
re-read the title. do you not know the meaning of the word “paradox”?
ignorance on your part does not constitute an error on the part of the writer.
The title is the paradox and not paradoxes. Also, agreeing with the two ideas makes him a paradox or a double standard guy.
that’s not what is happening. it’s sad to witness such a spectacular failure to comprehend.