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.
Options
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
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.
And where have I said that to be tolerant you have to agree with the person, dear? :thumb:
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:
That's exactly it.
Too much of this is about bullying others into agreeing with you.
And where are all those examples of me wanting to ban religious views? I'm still waiting...
Fascist! :mad:
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.
Who gets to decide what's relevant when educating people on such matters?
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.
:yes: And respect them.
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.
Bollocks.
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.
Bollocks. Someone like Nick Griffin, for example? Or Ian Huntley? Should I respect their opinions?
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.
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.
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.
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.
I'm aware I don't have to engage you. I'm saying I would choose to more if you were generally less allusive.
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.
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.
Stop it. Naughty boy! I'm not going to talk to you about countries, and I suspect no one else will; just leave it.
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
:thumb:
Spot on.