Re: Bye bye, firefox
@LordLundin,
Sadly, this is one of the downsides to a system that tolerates or claims to tolerate everything save what people deem intolerant. it's an absolute negation, a self defeating argument that goes a little something like this:
Person A says, "I tolerate everything!"
Person B says, "No you don't. You don't like my train of thoughts, because there are things I do not tolerate!"
Person A can then choose to reply, "I can tolerate intolerance," which would frame him as a complete fool because if he were honestly capable of tolerating intolerance, he would in fact be saying that his own position on the matter is less than important to him, and so why should it be important to anyone else! On the other hand, if he says, "I can't tolerate that, "he is in fact digging his own grave in the argument by suggesting that he cannot tolerate everything that is everything as he previously supposed.
That's what the whole fight concerning internet nutrality is and has always been about, big corporations wanting to dictate what should and should not be viewed at what speeds and by what people. In essence, that leaves a huge giant like google able to squash any other search engine by virtue of the fact that google has the money to back itself up and serve content based on that money rather than on any fairness factor.
to seriously tolerate something you have to learn that you will not always agree with it and also, that the other party in question has the freedom, and even right, to choose as he wills. Obviously such a choice can come with consequences; that's part of the tradeoff. Both systems have flaws, but I believe I prefer the latter over the former, yes, especially in politics.
_______________________________________________ Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
