"A guard who waves anyone into the city is surely not good at their job.
The tolerant guard will open the gates to any threat on an suicidally altruistic grounds."

This is plainly evident.

Tolerance holds open ports of entry to threatening individuals and ideas.

While social vigilance restricts this movement.

Only if you have tolerance mixed with acceptance as same virtues

No

Again, I stress we then define tolerance as hypertolerance in this regard.

You've hit the disconnect again

I disagree

...that's the point of calling it a disconnect.

Tolerance and acceptance are different, not synonymous

They do not go hand-in-hand

Hyper is over the limit clearly, arbitrarily we can but I mean we should defer to NAP

Oh Christ on a trike.

1. Fucking don't.

2. Non-Aggression principle is irrelevant to this discussion

Oh boy, an idealist

Not even an idealist.

I'm an idealist

And I don't believe in that tripe

I'm not a lolbert

<:randylDad:521892982576906240>

I'm sorry if you feel distressed, I hope you look at it rather like mental gymnastics

Discovering ideas

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