I think a few people reading my journal have missed the very first journal entry I have made. This is entirely reasonable, as I don't expect everyone to read the entire journal.I think a few people reading my journal have missed the very first journal entry I have made. This is entirely reasonable, as I don't expect everyone to read the entire journal.
This is a collection of things other people have said. I post them here from many sources,
Now, I received a comment on my last entry which I am unable to respond to in place, so I'll put a response here.
Your journal entry boils down to "intolerance of things I like is bad, but intolerance of things I don't like is okay".
You seem to be turning one thing, namely "intolerance", into many things when you say, "but intolerance of things I don't like is okay". So, in effect, you are arguing against something the journal entry never stated.
Second, your extension from one thing to many things causes you to miss the point further, and I don't think you have picked up on what the previous journal entry says (though it does so fuzzily). I will provide another few examples which adhere to the same flow and general syntax to illustrate what the entry's author is saying:
Assume destruction is evil. Now, contemplate the destruction of destruction. The naive extension of this contemplation is to arrive at the conclusion that destruction of destruction is evil.
Assume murder is evil. Now, contemplate the murder of murder. The naive extension of this contemplation is to arrive at the conclusion that murder of murder is evil.
So, where does the confusion arise? It comes from the fuzzy and ambiguous nature of human language, English in particular. In the first assumption, destruction/murder is used to refer to a real world, physical act. In the naive extension, destruction/murder is used in a way where it means something totally different. In the extension, destruction really means "stopping destruction" and murder really means "stopping murder".
Applying this same framework to the original journal entry, the author simply uses lots of words to explain that "intolerance" in the real world means one thing, and intolerance of intolerance really means "attempting to curb/stem/diminish/stop intolerance".
Now, the only other issue here is that the original entry uses the word "you", as in, "because you are intolerant, I am justified to be intolerant of you". In this way, I disagree with the author and side with the comments made in the response to the journal entry. For me to agree with the entry's author, I would have to replace "you" with "your intolerance". As intolerance of an individual is real world intolerance, and intolerance of one's intolerance really indicates an attempt to curb/stem/diminish/stop real world intolerance.