DY: I made the final sentence a little stronger than necessary for the sake of humor. The fact is, any argument about intolerance can be turned on its head. It shouldn’t, though, because intolerance is often a bad thing and blanket arguments about “you’re saying I’m wrong” hurt good and decent people.
To actually explain my last line, sans the humor. I am taking it as a given that it is impossible for honest discussion to begin if your assumption from the start is that my position is wrong. If you can prove my position untenable, you have won the debate. If you can’t, and I also can’t prove you wrong, then we clearly both have acceptable positions. My point wasn’t that you would be wrong with the inherently intolerant position. It’s that you’re no longer playing by the same rules. I wasn’t saying you can’t do that. I was pointing out the position of dismissal out of hand (which we’ll call the inherently intolerant position) does not presume to be involved in a debate. Therefore, someone taking that position is claiming an a priori moral superiority without even deigning to prove it (or at least to begin by citing others who have proven it). I won’t tell you that such a position is wrong without proving it (though it seems fairly self-evident), but I will say that it is obvious that someone has the right to defend himself, and strongly, against the inherently intolerant position. Prove me wrong. That’s fine. But dismissing me out of hand is, well, pointless.