we wish to change others minds - and they have a right not to change.
I disagree. Nazis, slavers, rapists. They have no right to their beliefs. We should have a set of laws that allows us to force such people into rehabilitation.
they do have a right to their beliefs. …and we have a right to treat them with equivalent respect to how they would treat us. How you treat others is implicit consent to be treated the same way by them, or by those they trust.
Moreover, we have a right to protect those who seek protection, if we deem that worthwhile, and the protectee does as well.
but they all have a right to think how they do- and attempting to eliminate that thought from the collective mind is both a: fighting from a weak position, and b: even if you manage to eradicate the kinds of thought that you seek to eradicate, you simply leave yourself and those of the next generation susceptible to it.
Instead, you need to incorporate it. …Like one would with anger. It’s not wise to follow anger (and many emotions) directly. But they do indicate a problem that you may need to address. But if you simply try to stamp it out because “anger bad”, you’ll end up an absolute wreck spreading anger with everything you do.
…except to those who only use it as a tool to recognize when something’s wrong.
I think you will be rehabilitated, in time, because you want to control how people think. …and people who think doing so is a solution are, themselves, a danger to society, and they are susceptible to control by bad actors. Fortunately, they’re generally also a self-limiting problem.
I disagree. Nazis, slavers, rapists. They have no right to their beliefs. We should have a set of laws that allows us to force such people into rehabilitation.
they do have a right to their beliefs. …and we have a right to treat them with equivalent respect to how they would treat us. How you treat others is implicit consent to be treated the same way by them, or by those they trust.
Moreover, we have a right to protect those who seek protection, if we deem that worthwhile, and the protectee does as well.
but they all have a right to think how they do- and attempting to eliminate that thought from the collective mind is both a: fighting from a weak position, and b: even if you manage to eradicate the kinds of thought that you seek to eradicate, you simply leave yourself and those of the next generation susceptible to it.
Instead, you need to incorporate it. …Like one would with anger. It’s not wise to follow anger (and many emotions) directly. But they do indicate a problem that you may need to address. But if you simply try to stamp it out because “anger bad”, you’ll end up an absolute wreck spreading anger with everything you do.
…except to those who only use it as a tool to recognize when something’s wrong.
I think you will be rehabilitated, in time, because you want to control how people think. …and people who think doing so is a solution are, themselves, a danger to society, and they are susceptible to control by bad actors. Fortunately, they’re generally also a self-limiting problem.