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

13567

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fiend_85 wrote: »
    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.

    EXACTLY!

    A human being is a human being, even if they are a black human being, or a Jewish human being, or a racist hman beng, or a communist human being...

    A person is a person.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    No one is suggesting they don't have a right to exist are they? :confused:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    No, that's why you say that "x person should be put up against a wall and shot"
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Namaste wrote: »
    EXACTLY!

    A human being is a human being, even if they are a black human being, or a Jewish human being, or a racist hman beng, or a communist human being...

    A person is a person.

    Yes of course they are. But a human can also be a massive cunt who i tolerate but have no respect for whatsoever.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fiend_85 wrote: »
    No, that's why you say that "x person should be put up against a wall and shot"
    Oh ffs... :rolleyes:

    Please don't tell me that like Seeker you have trouble identifying hyperboles.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Hyperbole yes, but it, and other comments of yours, indicate that you in fact fail to respect people with differing opinions to your own. I've also been on the receiving end of it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Those who still genuinely believe that a country that allows shopkeepers and landlords to put a sign up outside their premises banning Jews, gays, Irish or blacks from their premises would be a very tolerant country should perhaps forget for a minute they themselves are white, British, straight and Christian, and imagine themselves as a member of those categories living there.

    Let's see how tolerant that country now seems.

    Just some food for thought...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fiend_85 wrote: »
    Hyperbole yes, but it, and other comments of yours, indicate that you in fact fail to respect people with differing opinions to your own. I've also been on the receiving end of it.
    What do you mean by 'respect'?

    Do I respect intolerant acts? No.

    Do I respect the person who commits intolerant acts? Depends, but on the majority yes.

    Unless you're suggesting disagreeing with somebody's actions is disrespecting them.

    Please do elaborate.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Those who still genuinely believe that a country that allows shopkeepers and landlords to put a sign up outside their premises banning Jews, gays, Irish or blacks from their premises would be a very tolerant country should perhaps forget for a minute they themselves are white, British, straight and Christian, and imagine themselves as a member of those categories living there.

    Let's see how tolerant that country now seems.

    Just some food for thought...

    If someone chose not to interact with me, I don`t think I would have any desire to force them to.

    The idea seems crazy to me.

    How about you ?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yes we all know there is no such thing as emotional or psychological hurt and blah blah blah. What's the harm in pubs putting a 'no wogs allowed' sign eh?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Yes we all know there is no such thing as emotional or psychological hurt and blah blah blah. What's the harm in pubs putting a 'no wogs allowed' sign eh?

    If you don`t want to answer, I won`t attempt to force you.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I have already. Sorry if you don't like the answer.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yes of course they are. But a human can also be a massive cunt who i tolerate but have no respect for whatsoever.

    Aren't tolerance and respect synomymous?

    I mean of course, depending on what level we're talking.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Depends on the context I guess. I can respect the wellbeing of somebody (i.e. not attack them or insult them) and yet disrespect their opinions if they are racially offensive, for instance. Does that make me an intolerant person?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fiend_85 wrote: »
    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.

    That's not what "respect" means.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You guys should tolerate and respect Aladdin's opinion that he doesn't have to respect opinions he disagrees with.

    I think theres a difference here between respecting someone's right to hold an odious opinion, treating someone who holds an odious opinion with respect, and respecting that person's opinion. I agree with Aladdin that you should practise the first two but not the latter. Who should I respect the opinion of an uninformed, ignorant person whose opinion is based solely on prejudice? There is nothing to respect about that. But like I said, I respect their right to hold their own opinion and I would treat them with respect, so long as they extended the same courtesy to me.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Depends on the context I guess. I can respect the wellbeing of somebody (i.e. not attack them or insult them) and yet disrespect their opinions if they are racially offensive, for instance. Does that make me an intolerant person?

    Depends on what way you disrespect their opinions? I guess that if you believe somebody's opinions are racist and offensive, but believe the person has the right to hold these beliefs, then maybe that is tolerance?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    carlito wrote: »
    I think theres a difference here between respecting someone's right to hold an odious opinion, treating someone who holds an odious opinion with respect, and respecting that person's opinion.
    But then whose opinion is right?
    I agree with Aladdin that you should practise the first two but not the latter. Who should I respect the opinion of an uninformed, ignorant person whose opinion is based solely on prejudice? There is nothing to respect about that.
    But surely you could respect their feelings around the subject, then try to educate them? Everybody's opinions are based upon ignorance, prejudice, being uninformed... By our own life experiences. I mean by what degree do we choose to respect people anyway?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Namaste wrote: »
    Depends on what way you disrespect their opinions? I guess that if you believe somebody's opinions are racist and offensive, but believe the person has the right to hold these beliefs, then maybe that is tolerance?
    I've never argued against anyone having thoughts or beliefs so I guess that makes me a tolerant person.

    Other people: please take note of that ^ once and for all :)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Namaste wrote: »
    But then whose opinion is right?

    Make yer own mind up.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Why does there have to be right or wrong anyway?
    Things are not black and white.

    Also, respecting someone is only possible after you get to know them or about them. And if you learn that they are racist, why should you respect them or their opinions? Are you saying that it's ok to think racist as long as you don't act racist?
    In that case, you are 2 grapes short of a fruitcake.
    And then there is being respectful.... If I knew someone was racist, I wouldn't go and bash their head against the wall, but I would let them know how I felt about the subject.
    Tolerance - there are some things that I am tolerant of, there are some I am not.
    That pretty much goes for everyone, but it's also different for everyone.
    Tolerance and respect have never, are not and never will be synonimous to respect.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Those who still genuinely believe that a country that allows shopkeepers and landlords to put a sign up outside their premises banning Jews, gays, Irish or blacks from their premises would be a very tolerant country should perhaps forget for a minute they themselves are white, British, straight and Christian, and imagine themselves as a member of those categories living there.

    Let's see how tolerant that country now seems.

    Just some food for thought...

    There is a big difference between tolerance and indifference and you seem to be missing that point. Because I tolerate someone's views and their actions (assuming non-violent) doesn't mean that I am indifferent.

    How tolerant is a country which bans political parties who are extreme right wing (which you have advocated in the past), what about banning people with certain political views from holding certain jobs (again which you have advocated in the past)...?

    There isn't a huge leap between intolerance and using the law to enforce your view on others.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    A lot more tolerant than a country that allows people banning others from entry in premises because of the colour of their skin I should think.

    We obviously have radically different understandings of the meaning of the world tolerance.

    Incidentally I have never advocated banning extreme right wing parties just for the sake of it. I have repeteadly said that if the BNP doesn't incite racial hatred it should be allowed to remain legal. If it stirs racial shit then it shouldn't.

    As for people belonging to such parties losing their jobs, again I have only said that they should not be in contact with vulnerable people or in a position to abuse them (such as a primary school teacher). I have never supported a blanket ban of BNP members.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    A lot more tolerant than a country that allows people banning others from entry in premises because of the colour of their skin I should think.

    No, by definition it would be less tolerant. It bans things, that isn't a sign of tolerance.
    I have repeteadly said that if the BNP doesn't incite racial hatred it should be allowed to remain legal. If it stirs racial shit then it shouldn't.

    Thus proving your intolerance. Rather than argue the point, you would use the force of law.
    As for people belonging to such parties losing their jobs, again I have only said that they should not be in contact with vulnerable people or in a position to abuse them (such as a primary school teacher). I have never supported a blanket ban of BNP members.

    See previous comment. It's as if you assume that a school teacher is going to use their position to push their own political agenda. In which case you should argue that members of any party should be banned...

    Ther are a few comments here that I disagree with, tolerance and respect are not the same thing - although respect for another's right to a view is relevant - and I am not suggesting that we should have respect for the person who hold racist or homophobic views, just that we should respect their right to live by those views.

    There are ways in which you can change those views which don't include the state forcing them to conform. It should be down to the people to effect a change in behaviour.

    If Pub A bans blacks then the landlord should be shunned - the local shop should refuse to treat him, the bank refuse to take his money, suppliers refuse to supply him etc Make it hard for him to live a normal life but don't use the law to prevent him from acting in accordance with his conscience. It isn't far from that to banning unions...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Thus proving your intolerance. Rather than argue the point, you would use the force of law.

    I think Aladdin was referring to inciting racial violence, which is inciting a direct act of aggression against another person because of their race. The question in that case is that should it be a crime to incite actions, or just commit them?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If Pub A bans blacks then the landlord should be shunned - the local shop should refuse to treat him, the bank refuse to take his money, suppliers refuse to supply him etc Make it hard for him to live a normal life but don't use the law to prevent him from acting in accordance with his conscience. It isn't far from that to banning unions...

    So you're against all anti-discrimination laws?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    No, by definition it would be less tolerant. It bans things, that isn't a sign of tolerance.
    Er... while banning blacks or Jews from admission into a pub does not count presumably? LOL!


    Thus proving your intolerance. Rather than argue the point, you would use the force of law.
    Yes, my intolerance towards something that is intolerable (and incidentally against the law, even if it is often not prosecuted for political reasons).

    I'm curious now. Would you call a person who asks a demonstration of KKK calling for ni ggers to be hanged from lamposts is not allowed to go ahead as intolerant?

    Funny how during all these discussions in the last few weeks you have not found the time very often (if at all) to describe such people as intolerant. It's only poor me and those who think like me who are the intolerant ones. Poor opressed racists, homophobes and bigots!


    See previous comment. It's as if you assume that a school teacher is going to use their position to push their own political agenda. In which case you should argue that members of any party should be banned...
    No. I'm assuming a member of a political party that believes people of certain races are scum and inferior to others and who would like to kick out non whites out of the country is not suitable to teach children. Just as I don't think a convicted paedophile is suitable to teach children either.

    Tell me: am I intolerant for believing kiddie fiddlers should not allowed to teach children? Wouldn't surprise me if you thought that as well...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think Aladdin was referring to inciting racial violence, which is inciting a direct act of aggression against another person because of their race. The question in that case is that should it be a crime to incite actions, or just commit them?

    Incitement is a shit rule. The criminal there is the person who carries out an act. It's like asking a kid why he jumped into a river and him saying "my friend told me to"...
    So you're against all anti-discrimination laws?

    As I said before, I understand the sentiment behind them but I don't think that they are the right tool to use.

    I do not disciminate against anyone, not because the law says it is wrong but because I believe it to be wrong.

    Flip the argument on it's head. What if the law sais that you could not employ blacks. Would you obey it, or would you do everything you could to undermine it?

    The sexism, racism and homophobia we saw in the seventies hasn't changed bacues of the law, it's changed because the public attitudes changed.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The sexism, racism and homophobia we saw in the seventies hasn't changed bacues of the law, it's changed because the public attitudes changed.
    So public attitudes to women in the workplace haven't been influenced by employers being forced to employ women, and realising that they can do just as good a job? That was all the result of a few free-thinking pioneers arguing their point was it?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru

    The sexism, racism and homophobia we saw in the seventies hasn't changed bacues of the law, it's changed because the public attitudes changed.
    I disagree. Not too long ago gay people were still reporting they were made to eat separately from other employees or use different cutlery because of homophobia and ignorance. Ignorant homophobes still exist today, and if it weren't for employment and other laws legislating against it you can bet your bottom dollar some bigot employers out there would still be making gay employees eat with plastic forks at the canteen.
Sign In or Register to comment.