That's exactly how we're viewing it and that's why we disrespect your position

Mental gymnastics.

...Mental gymnastics is not for discovering ideas.

It's for avoiding consequentials.

Well, let's get back to the previous point rather.

Mental gymnastics? I feel chuffed about them

Now which definition of chuffed am I using?

Mental gymnastics

<:Veemote:501103628883591188>

You can only infer

This is basically what the argument is like

We all agreed, that acceptance and tolerance were different entities and that you people would like to redefine and get to hypertolerance. Am I following?

>entities

not entities

But I'm trying to use hypertolerance to make our language precise.

Separate characters, one's not a virtue

None of the above are *virtues*

Okay, okay

Go on

You're clearly having trouble with the basics.

So I'm going to lay them back down straight for you

Much appreciated

1. We begin with the assessment that Tolerance and Apathy are perceived falsely as virtuous by a morally perverse and structurally crumbling society.
2. The assessment defines tolerance as a false-virtue pertaining to the tendency for the morally perverse to rationalize and otherwise permit poor behaviors instead of rebuking them and correcting them towards virtuous behaviors. Tolerance as a false-virtue is the absence of objective moral standard, in deference to a nebulous subjectivity.
3. The assessment does not define tolerance as the act of giving due respect to persons.

4. To distinguish between the false-virtue and the act of tolerating, the term "hypertolerance" is suggested as a substitution for the false-virtue.

5. Acceptance is then defined precisely as the active form of hypertolerance - the overt encouragement of behaviors through express approval, rather than tacit, passive permission.

@𝕷𝖊𝖛𝖎𝖆𝖙𝖍𝖆𝖓 Could we agree?

Pretty much

1. If we do (that's what I mean with devil's advocate, for me tolerance of different preferences not overarching NAP is that)

2.yes,if we accepted your premises, it would logically follow, true.

3.yep (same caveat)

4.yep (same caveat)

5.thats some evil, yep I can see @spooky ducc

Accepting point 5 requires accepting point 4, in that case.

Which would imply the caveat is met.

Which means you accept 1.

Oh and thanks for the detailed run down, even if we don't have a good understanding

I try.

Accepting your premises was the seed of my curiosity

k

Is your curiosity sated?

I see where we disagree, there's a few more other branches I suppose.

BUT

Thank you.
Duly

Aye.

So then I suppose we're done here.

Take notes, shitposters.

Cool