Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.

Tolerance- an apology

24567

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You are in error migpilot. To be tolerant of a person you have to disagree with them.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The trouble with saying that only actions should be legislated against not views is that actions and views are closely intertwined.

    If I believe running is good for you and the Government bans running its a bit of a cop out to say that I'm still allowed to believe running is good for me...

    And yes some actions are so abhorent either for society or the individual those actions need to be banned. If the catholic Church believed a sure fire way of getting through the Pearly Gates was to stone to death a gay, well whatever their beliefs that has to be made an illegal act.

    However, there is a line, albeit often blurred and uncertain between people's act which should remain legal, whether you agree with them or not and that which should be illegal.

    It's got little to do with tolerance and more to do with the right of the individual not to be bullied by the state.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fiend_85 wrote: »
    You are in error migpilot. To be tolerant of a person you have to disagree with them.

    And where have I said that to be tolerant you have to agree with the person, dear? ;) :thumb:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    migpilot wrote: »
    And where have I said that to be tolerant you have to agree with the person, dear? ;) :thumb:
    Face it, there will never be an absolutely tolerant society and people will always have different views.

    Implies that as long as there are disenting viewpoints there can not be a tolerant society.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fiend_85 wrote: »
    Implies that as long as there are disenting viewpoints there can not be a tolerant society.

    It does not.
    It says that there will never be a tolerant society.
    And...
    People will always have different views.

    The two go hand in hand, not one exclusive of the other.
    Maybe I should have used "beacuse" instead of "and".
    :thumb:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    However, there is a line, albeit often blurred and uncertain between people's act which should remain legal, whether you agree with them or not and that which should be illegal.

    It's got little to do with tolerance and more to do with the right of the individual not to be bullied by the state.

    That's exactly it.

    Too much of this is about bullying others into agreeing with you.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    You want the BNP banned and you want anyone who is a member of the BNP to be sacked. You've said that before. You don't want the BNP banned for any reason other than you don't like their views.
    Nope. I have said that the BNP should be allowed to exist if they don't incite racial hatred (which is illegal in this country). And the only members of the BNP I have suggested they might be incompatible with their jobs are those in contact with vulnerable people and who might abuse their position based on their beliefs (school teachers, for instance).

    And where are all those examples of me wanting to ban religious views? I'm still waiting...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The trouble with saying that only actions should be legislated against not views is that actions and views are closely intertwined.

    If I believe running is good for you and the Government bans running its a bit of a cop out to say that I'm still allowed to believe running is good for me...

    And yes some actions are so abhorent either for society or the individual those actions need to be banned. If the catholic Church believed a sure fire way of getting through the Pearly Gates was to stone to death a gay, well whatever their beliefs that has to be made an illegal act.

    However, there is a line, albeit often blurred and uncertain between people's act which should remain legal, whether you agree with them or not and that which should be illegal.

    It's got little to do with tolerance and more to do with the right of the individual not to be bullied by the state.
    I agree the principle behind much of that- though I suspect where to draw the line is the point where me and others would disagree.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    So you do think it's alright for someone to be a bigoted/racist/homophobe as long as they don't actively discriminate or incite their beliefs?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yes
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fiend_85 wrote: »
    Yes

    Fascist! :mad: ;)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yerascrote wrote: »
    So you do think it's alright for someone to be a bigoted/racist/homophobe as long as they don't actively discriminate or incite their beliefs?

    Everyone has their prejudices. Unless we introduce thought control, you won't stop it. What we can do, however, is to educate, persuade and confront when necessary.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote: »
    What we can do, however, is to educate, persuade and confront when necessary.

    Who gets to decide what's relevant when educating people on such matters? ;)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Me of course.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yerascrote wrote: »
    So you do think it's alright for someone to be a bigoted/racist/homophobe as long as they don't actively discriminate or incite their beliefs?
    Well I wouldn't say it's ''alright''. It's undesireable and even deplorable. But contrary to what some people keep saying I don't advocate banning thought or opinions- only certain unnaceptable actions based on such opinions.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Well I wouldn't say it's ''alright''. It's undesireable and even deplorable. But contrary to what some people keep saying I don't advocate banning thought or opinions- only certain unnaceptable actions based on such opinions.

    This debate/argument is becoming far too cyclic now dude. I think we're firmly in the camp that believes as soon as personal thoughts manifest themselves into actions, then that's when they need to be kept in check.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fiend_85 wrote: »
    You are in error migpilot. To be tolerant of a person you have to disagree with them.

    :yes: And respect them.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    This debate/argument is becoming far too cyclic now dude. I think we're firmly in the camp that believes as soon as personal thoughts manifest themselves into actions, then that's when they need to be kept in check.

    Do you think they "need to be kept in check" if their thoughts manifest into inaction ?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    seeker wrote: »
    Do you think they "need to be kept in check" if their thoughts manifest into inaction ?

    What is it you're trying to allude to this time? I'd engage you more if we didn't have to go round the houses every time you posted.

    I believe, as Aladdin does, that everyone is entitled to their own opinions and thoughts. I also believe when people start to act on their thoughts and the effects become tangible, that's when ears need to prick up and people need to start taking notice.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Namaste wrote: »
    :yes: And respect them.

    Bollocks.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote: »
    Bollocks.

    Then you're as bad as them.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Namaste wrote: »
    Then you're as bad as them.

    Poppy-cock. My tolerance, yet complete lack of respect, for people who hold racist views does not make me as bad as them.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Namaste wrote: »
    Then you're as bad as them.

    Bollocks. Someone like Nick Griffin, for example? Or Ian Huntley? Should I respect their opinions?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    I'll ask again: does anyone really believe that a country (let's call it country A) where blacks can be banned from hotels; where gays are told they cannot eat at a restaurant because they are AIDS-ridden filthy abominations; where shopkeepers can hang swastikas from their shop windows and bar subhuman hooknose Jews from entry; where pub landlords tell Irish scum they're no welcome; where golf courses put up a sign that reads 'no dogs or women'; where football fans can freely chant to each other 'you're just a town full of pa kis'; where political parties state that every single member of Muslim religion is a violent wife beating terrorist who cannot be considered British and must be kicked out of the country; or where landlords can evict people from their houses if they are found to be Catholic/Protestant/atheist

    would be more tolerant than a country (let's call it country B) where it is illegal to discriminate in such manner?

    It wouldn't change it if you lived in country B.

    Tolerance is just that - TOLERATING something, biting your tongue, putting up with it even though you think it sucks. Bottling up your feelings. Then the natural progression: pretending you think differently than you do. Lying. Maybe taking your frustration out by whacking tennis balls or the skulls of your fellow humans.

    This comes under the fourth definition of 'tolerance' at dictionary.com: "the act or capacity of enduring; endurance".

    The reason the BNP, for example, can get people on-side with its ranting and raving is because other political parties are so wrapped up in 'tolerance'. Patting gays on the head and saying "the Catholics should adopt you, shouldn't they?" Taking seriously the term 'Islamophobia'. So when you get something, however extreme, that flies in the face of all this pussyfooting, it gets people on the margins (of prejudice, of disillusionment) listening.

    What happens if you CAN ban the practices you mentioned? Not a magical turn of events where bigotry and hatred dies, but much of the same, only with people more pissed off about the whole thing because "political correctness has really and truly gone maaaaad!" they'll be screaming.

    If you're black and you get banned from this hotel, you tell all the people you know about it and they're shocked and appalled and more importantly the hotel doesn't get to take your money. But if the law states that they HAVE to let you in, due to all this tolerance, then what will happen is they'll do it begrudgingly, maybe they'll have a 'special' room for their dark-skinned clientele; maybe they'll just treat them like crap. Or maybe they'll force smiles throughout and you'll just get the feeling that somewhere behind the facade they're not too happy about your presence. And then what do you do? Pay them for their unending tolerance!

    The AIDS-gays paying for their food after the waiter serves it to them wearing rubber gloves and a mask. The war veterans frequenting a newsagent that they have no idea belongs to a wannabe Nazi. The Irish singing drunken songs as the barman puts in his earplugs and counts the money he's made from them.

    Et cetera.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It wouldn't change it if you lived in country B.

    Tolerance is just that - TOLERATING something, biting your tongue, putting up with it even though you think it sucks. Bottling up your feelings. Then the natural progression: pretending you think differently than you do. Lying. Maybe taking your frustration out by whacking tennis balls or the skulls of your fellow humans.

    This comes under the fourth definition of 'tolerance' at dictionary.com: "the act or capacity of enduring; endurance".

    The reason the BNP, for example, can get people on-side with its ranting and raving is because other political parties are so wrapped up in 'tolerance'. Patting gays on the head and saying "the Catholics should adopt you, shouldn't they?" Taking seriously the term 'Islamophobia'. So when you get something, however extreme, that flies in the face of all this pussyfooting, it gets people on the margins (of prejudice, of disillusionment) listening.

    What happens if you CAN ban the practices you mentioned? Not a magical turn of events where bigotry and hatred dies, but much of the same, only with people more pissed off about the whole thing because "political correctness has really and truly gone maaaaad!" they'll be screaming.
    Frankly, anyone who cried 'political correctness gone mad' at shopkeepers not being allowed to hang svastikas in windows and ban Jews or hoteliers putting up a sign that says 'no blacks' would be quite the cunt and in the minority. Few people would think that way.
    If you're black and you get banned from this hotel, you tell all the people you know about it and they're shocked and appalled and more importantly the hotel doesn't get to take your money. But if the law states that they HAVE to let you in, due to all this tolerance, then what will happen is they'll do it begrudgingly, maybe they'll have a 'special' room for their dark-skinned clientele; maybe they'll just treat them like crap. Or maybe they'll force smiles throughout and you'll just get the feeling that somewhere behind the facade they're not too happy about your presence. And then what do you do? Pay them for their unending tolerance!

    The AIDS-gays paying for their food after the waiter serves it to them wearing rubber gloves and a mask. The war veterans frequenting a newsagent that they have no idea belongs to a wannabe Nazi. The Irish singing drunken songs as the barman puts in his earplugs and counts the money he's made from them.

    Et cetera.
    Still sounds a far more attractive proposition (to me anyway) than a country where people can discriminate against others because of the colour of their skin, gender, race or sexuality.

    I wouldn't want to live within a thousand miles of a place that allowed shopkeepers to put up signs saying 'no Jews' to be honest.

    And besides the issue of tolerance, chances are that such a place would be in flames in months if not weeks. When people are provoked, people react. It wouldn't be long before gangs of people started to smash places up and retaliatory attacks took place.

    Racism, hatred, homophobia and general bigotry are nauseating traits of the human race that should be contained, not allowed to flourish.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What is you're trying to allude to this time? I'd engage you more if we didn't have to go round the houses every time you posted.

    As far as I`m concerned, you don`t have to engage me,or anyone.

    Your inaction in going round the houses will not result in me "keeping you in check" or requesting that an alleged representative does it for me.

    That`s what I`m trying to allude to.
    I believe, as Aladdin does, that everyone is entitled to their own opinions and thoughts. I also believe when people start to act on their thoughts and the effects become tangible, that's when ears need to prick up and people need to start taking notice.

    You have kept referring to people`s actions.

    I was enquiring if you had the same views about people`s inaction.

    The implication is there in Aladdin`s posts, especially the first one about imagined people in imagined countries.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    seeker wrote:
    As far as I`m concerned, you don`t have to engage me,or anyone.

    I'm aware I don't have to engage you. I'm saying I would choose to more if you were generally less allusive.
    Your inaction in going round the houses will not result in me "keeping you in check" or requesting that an alleged representative does it for me.

    That`s what I`m trying to allude to.

    What? Dude, being deliberately abstract doesn't make your point any more profound. Moreover, I get the sense we're going to end up back at the non-existence of things if I ask you to elaborate, so I shalln't.
    I was enquiring if you had the same views about people`s inaction.

    Are you asking me whether I think there should be legislation in place to prevent inaction? I'm not sure. It's not something I've thought much about to be honest.
    The implication is there in Aladdin`s posts, especially the first one about imagined people in imagined countries.

    Stop it. Naughty boy! I'm not going to talk to you about countries, and I suspect no one else will; just leave it. :D
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    Such as your hate-folled anti-religious diatribe, yeah? Oh, I forget, its fine to abuse religious people because they don't agree with you.

    You just want anyone who disagrees with you to be banned. At least be honest about it.

    If you don't want your views banned you shouldn't be advocating the banning of others. Otherwise you might just find that when the wind changes, you'll be shafted.

    imo verbal abuse is perfectly fine, so is laughing at it as a response - the guy outside straftford station, the be a winner not a sinner guy, i dislike him emmensely i also applaud his right to speak such dribble but laugh at him nonetheless
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote: »
    Bollocks. Someone like Nick Griffin, for example? Or Ian Huntley? Should I respect their opinions?
    You don't tolerate ian huntley, and no-one said you had to respect nick griffin's opinion, just him, that is his right to exist as you do.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The trouble with saying that only actions should be legislated against not views is that actions and views are closely intertwined....

    It's got little to do with tolerance and more to do with the right of the individual not to be bullied by the state.

    :thumb:

    Spot on.
Sign In or Register to comment.