*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[spoonitnow]

"Muslim ban" is not intolerant language. It's a part of a defense against intolerance.

Read and learn: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

[Poopadoop]

"Muslim ban" is not intolerant language. It's a part of a defense against intolerance.

Read and learn: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

The paradox of tolerance has never escaped me; the idea that to be truly tolerant implies you also tolerate the intolerant. However, not sure what this has to with the words 'Muslim Ban'.

If your argument is that Muslims are holders of an intolerant creed and thus must be excluded from America in order for it to remain a tolerant society, this is overly simplistic. There are just as many Christians who are intolerant, and by your logic should thus be deported (or not allowed in).

So where does this leave us? This argument uses a broad brush to paint an entire religion based on the actions/views of a tiny minority of them, ignoring that applying that same heuristic to the majority religion was never a part of the stated goal of the 'Muslim Ban'. My argument is that to do so is to behave unfairly. If this is not intolerance then it's at least unjust.

If instead, your argument is that tolerance requires we passively acquiesce to intolerance in our leaders and government, then well I guess a utilitarian argument could be made for a tolerant person seeking whatever allows the greatest amount of net tolerance to exist, and that being intolerant of a national policy of intolerance is logical under that principle.