Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Wrexasaur wrote:Back to the context of this conversation.
GG wrote:For me personally I am uncomfortable around gay people. Why is this? Because of the way they flaunt it and rub it in my nose.
For me personally I am not uncomfortable around gay people. Why is this? Because I do not consider those that try to make me uncomfortable (people from all walks of life do that) to be representative of the community as a whole.
Most people are fine with me of those who have a sexual orientation different from mine (I identify as asexual for my gender orientation). It may get uncomfortable however in a social situation wherein a person may start flirting with me becuase my general demeanor is flattering, friendly, and inoffensive to those I may not know (more personal people see me as a kind hearted asshat).
@GG
Would you become uncomfortable around a person that you have known for quite a while, if they were to tell you they are gay?
More specifically, would noticing a man talking in a fashion that is considered feminine make you uncomfortable? Do homosexuals literally have to hit on you before you're uncomfortable around them?
Could you eat a meal next to a gay couple without being uncomfortable? They are just having a conversation and eating their food, but you notice that they are a gay couple.
I often have a little bit of trouble understanding what you're trying to say, but I think I get the gist of it.
It's certainly acceptable to say that a person is tolerant or intolerant of a specific action or characteristic. It's also certainly accurate to say that tolerance is essentially a matter of degree; a person can merely disapprove of something or they can start trying to blow it up, and the person may be considered intolerant of it in both cases. It seemed like you were also trying to say that to simply declare any criticism of intolerance in specific instances to be intolerant itself, and thus an invalid criticism, is irrational. I would agree with this, assuming that the criticism is something besides merely that person is guilty of "intolerance".
Or as an example this:
Person 1: Gays are disgusting. They should all be killed.
Person 2: That's intolerance! Intolerance is bad, you better shut your mouth!
Is bad argument, on the part of Person 2. He's contradicting himself, because he's intolerant of Person 1's opinion himself.
Alternatively, this:
Person 1: Gays are disgusting. They should all be killed.
Person 2: If it was legal to kill people on account of their being perceived as "disgusting" by random citizens, society would fall into chaos and endless bloodshed. Therefore you are being too intolerant, or you like to be stabbed.
Is good logic. Person 2 explains why intolerance in this instance is bad, rather than simply declaring it to be bad due to it being intolerance. Because he has condemned a specific instance of intolerance, rather than intolerance as a general concept, he's free from hypocrisy. Furthermore, if Person 1 disagrees with him, they now have a real subject to discuss, instead of endless bickering about ill-defined concepts. (I'm not intolerant! You're the one who's being intolerant! Intolerant of my freedom to have family values! Etc, etc.)
Automatically Appended Next Post: Now, one could argue that "tolerance", as a virtue, isn't supposed to mean "tolerance of everything" but is rather supposed to mean "relative tolerance" or "tolerance in general". However, I see this definition as one that falls apart fairly quickly. Using this definition naturally requires us to establish what things a person who is "tolerant" is tolerant of specifically. However, because "tolerance" is being considered a virtue, every individual would want the pool of things that a person who is "tolerant" is tolerant of to correspond to the things that they themselves are tolerant of.
What you would then get is, for instance, a liberal saying that the areas in which "tolerance" is important are homosexuality, recreational drug use, obscenity, and so forth, while a conservative says that the areas in which "tolerance" is important are gun ownership, traditional values, creationism, and so on. For every possible position a person may be tolerant towards (homosexuality) there exists a contrary position that a person cannot be tolerant of at the same time (the belief that homosexuality cannot be tolerated), so you can't merely add up the subjects a person is "tolerant" in and see who wins that way.
You could also theoretically define tolerance as "tolerance of things that are good for society", or something like that, but this inevitably simplifies to "tolerance of things which deserve to be tolerated", which is obviously begging the question.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh boy, what a long, rambley post. Feel free to ignore it, folks!
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2010/11/06 06:58:09
Anuvver fing - when they do sumfing, they try to make it look like somfink else to confuse everybody. When one of them wants to lord it over the uvvers, 'e says "I'm very speshul so'z you gotta worship me", or "I know summink wot you lot don't know, so yer better lissen good". Da funny fing is, arf of 'em believe it and da over arf don't, so 'e 'as to hit 'em all anyway or run fer it.
HowardTreesong wrote:without even knowing a person you damn them as a sinner simply for behaving in the manner most natural to them.
Wait a moment. The statement is "someone who commits a sinful act is a sinner." Knowledge of the particular person is unnecessary. As for this "manner most natural to them" business, that is really just an opinion.
Well if it is "just an opinion" it isn't mine, try asking some gay people what comes to them as natural behaviour. Furthermore scientific research has shown homosexuality to occur throughout the animal kingdom so it *is* natural.
generalgrog wrote:For me personally I am uncomfortable around gay people. Why is this? Because of the way they flaunt it and rub it in my nose. In the same way that I am uncomfortable around someone who flaunts their drug use and that wants to smoke pot around me. Or someone that I am with, that is married and flaunts their infidelity, is out looking to cheat on their spouse, or someone that cusses like a sailor around children. Do I hate these people that flaunt their flaws? No... but I sure don't like being around them that much.
Two issues, firstly you only notice the homosexuals who do 'flaunt' it, those that are much more secretive you wouldn't notice, so you wouldn't have the opportunity to feel "uncomfortable" around them. You could stand by them and not know.
Secondly, I bet you don't notice the heterosexuals "flaunting" it because you are so used to it. What do you call flouting? Does holding hands in public count as flaunting it? Does kissing in public count as flaunting it? How about cuddling on a park bench and kissing. Does that make you uncomfortable? Because heterosexual couples do that all the time and most people don't bat an eyelid.
But if it's 'flaunting' you want, well heterosexuals are equally capable of that. How many people have heard a bunch of 'lads' in a bar talking loudly about how they'd have so much sex and who with, whistling at girls and that sort of general crude behaviour? Or how about the number of t-shirts that have heterosexual slogans on them like "babe magnet" or pictures of semi-naked women, and they are worn normally and no one like you cares. But if a gay man were to wear a t-shirt that identified them as being gay, than you'd probably claim they were "rubbing your face in it".
generalgrog wrote:And one last note...It has never been proven that homosexuals are born that way. There are many homosexuals that have changed.
You can't really determine anyone's orientation when they are born, you could equally say that it has never been proven that heterosexuals are born that way. I have to point out that while some homosexuals change, there are heterosexuals who change too. Sexuality is not a rigid thing, it is flexible. Furthermore you can be bisexual, in which you can be attracted to both sexes, or slightly more to one sex than another. And that introduces more of a scale between total heterosexuality and total homosexuality complicating things further, especially as your preference can shift on that scale perhaps rather than a straight forward flip between homosexuality and heterosexuality.
Howard, seriously, don't even get into this subject with GG, you will find his answers to be most depressing.
And pointing out that you view them as cruel and unfair will see you labelled as a bigot.
I think any and all mistreatment or intolerance of gay people to be truly vile and disgusting, but if you happen to be Religious and happen to be intolerant of homosexuals because you think that due to a literal interpretation of some small portion of the bible then you are allowed to get away with it because people fear the criticism of the man will be taken as criticism of the masses.
Quite clearly my opening salvo was directed towards GG and Orlanth, but the (Christians in this case) take any excuse they can get to claim "offense" en masse.
Just suck it up and take heart from the fact that the vast majority of the population have no issues at all with gay people, and nothing but sympathy for their plight.
And that video Manchu posted was indeed touching.
The reason i feel so sorry for Gay people is because i am very aggressively heterosexual and i am well aware you have no control over your sexual orientation. The word "sexual preference" is a misnomer in my opinion, because you dont "prefer" something, you ust ARE something. I dont chase skirt because i PREFER them to men, my body demands i chase them because i am biologically inclined to do so. I disagree entirely with GGs (and many other Evangelical's) assertions that you can be "cured" of your "gayness", and i am certain that people who claim to be cured are merely supressing the urge and living a lie, but he and I have argued about this before so I will not bother opening that can of worms again.
As I said, as result of this knowledge I am as gay friendly as it is possible to be without wearing a yellow spandex jumpsuit and a phallic helmet and marching through a digital New York City with a bunch of well built communist men wearing vests and pointy red hats.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2010/11/06 10:56:33
We are arming Syrian rebels who support ISIS, who is fighting Iran, who is fighting Iraq who we also support against ISIS, while fighting Kurds who we support while they are fighting Syrian rebels.
This idea of 'flaunting' sexuality is a weird one. Would a gay bloke flirting with a straight bloke (Cannerus I'm looking at you! ) be considered 'rubbing their nose in it'? Is this because the sexual advance is not welcomed? Because not all heterosexual advances are welcomed, either.
If a woman hits on you and you aren't interested, is she 'rubbing your nose' in her 'lifestyle'? That's just a daft way of thinking - someone's sexuality is their own, if you let it affect you or bother you, then you're an insecure arsehole. OK, maybe 'insecure arsehole' is an unfortunate turn of phrase....
It doesn't bother me if gay fellas flirt with me (I live in Manchester and I'm the classic 'bear' build, it's to be expected! ), but I WILL admit that I sometimes find the behaviour of some gay men and women to be pretty irritating. On the other hand, I often find it to be awesome.
WARNING: CONTAINS SCENES WHICH SOME BIGOTS MAY FIND UPSETTING.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/11/06 11:52:45
I agree with Albatross, a big black fella tried to plant one on me when i was in NYC (Pride was on!) and i never had the urge to "plant one on him"
Automatically Appended Next Post: Edit- I just noticed that with my support for homosexuals and my avatar tache i may appear to be a member of the village people, but this is merely due to the "Avatars for November thread"
Honest!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/11/06 11:58:42
We are arming Syrian rebels who support ISIS, who is fighting Iran, who is fighting Iraq who we also support against ISIS, while fighting Kurds who we support while they are fighting Syrian rebels.
But this seems to be turning into a referendum on generalgrogs beliefs. All I was doing was giving my perspective to people that may never have heard that perspective before. The thread is turning into this:
Person A: I have a problem with orange.
Person B: I see..you don't like orange but what if the orange had a little less red and was more of a yellowish orange?
Person C: You don't like orange so you want to kill all orange!
Person D: You MUST like orange or you are a bigot.
I got really angry at one of your posts a couple of years ago GG, and it was on this topic.
I guess I must have grown up a little since then, because now I don't care if you think thatway, because I'm confident that your strong and inflexible moral code would prohibit you from actually doing anything bad to a gay person, even so far as to be impolite to them. At least, that's the impression I have gotten after reading many more of your posts.
I do think youmust have been aware that a reaction like this was likely when you posted what you posted, but hey, we got some good posts in this thread in with all the rubbish (Especially liked Orkeo's ones on intolerance.)
generalgrog wrote:But this seems to be turning into a referendum on generalgrogs beliefs. All I was doing was giving my perspective to people that may never have heard that perspective before. The thread is turning into this:
Person A: I have a problem with orange. Person B: I see..you don't like orange but what if the orange had a little less red and was more of a yellowish orange? Person C: You don't like orange so you want to kill all orange! Person D: You MUST like orange or you are a bigot.
I've not come across your views before, so seeing as you have given your perspective expect to be challenged on them. Boo hoo. Are you going to engage with criticism of your prejudice or are you going to play the victim? How do gay people "flaunt" their sexuality? Why should this be an issue for you? Why is it not prejudiced to deny a homosexual person a loving or sexual relationship, the sorts of relationship that would make you happy but which for them you would brand them a 'sinner'?
To compare it to disliking a choice of favourite colour is to trivialise the issue totally. These are people who live all around us. It like saying the you don't like black people, and that black people make you uncomfortable. Is that ok? To get over prejudices you have to accept having them, not fight to maintain them. I'm not comfortable with everyone in the world, sometimes certin types of people make me uneasy, be it their race, job or whatever but I acknowledge it as being my problem, not theirs. I would try to address that and better myself by overcoming it. I wouldn't play the victim and demand that people accept my right to be racist, or that others accept my prejudice was legitimate. I used to be 'uneasy' about homosexuals until I left a sheltered life behind where the topic was never discussed but was all preconceptions, I actually got to know lots more people some of whom are gay. I grew up.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2010/11/06 15:31:07
Howard A Treesong wrote:I would try to address that and better myself by overcoming it. I wouldn't play the victim and demand that people accept my right to be racist, or that others accept my prejudice was legitimate.
Does he demand that you accept it though? It seems like he holds his views regardless of your thoughts on the subject...
Not that I accept your premise that being gay and being black are even remotely comparable in this context.
Drink deeply and lustily from the foamy draught of evil.
W: 1.756 Quadrillion L: 0 D: 2
Haters gon' hate.
Howard A Treesong wrote:I would try to address that and better myself by overcoming it. I wouldn't play the victim and demand that people accept my right to be racist, or that others accept my prejudice was legitimate.
Does he demand that you accept it though? It seems like he holds his views regardless of your thoughts on the subject...
Not that I accept your premise that being gay and being black are even remotely comparable in this context.
Depends if you are with the premise surely?
You don't CHOOSE to be gay, you are born that way. I dont choose to like women, i just do.
You dont choose to be black, you are born that way.
Why is it not remotely comparable?
We are arming Syrian rebels who support ISIS, who is fighting Iran, who is fighting Iraq who we also support against ISIS, while fighting Kurds who we support while they are fighting Syrian rebels.
You can't tell if someone is gay by simply looking at them. Gays have never been enslaved, subject to discrimination of the same magnitude of what black people have had to deal with from the early history of this country(and the world, really) up until the very recent past and in some places still today.
Monster Rain wrote:Not that I accept your premise that being gay and being black are even remotely comparable in this context.
Why not? People don't choose their sexuality any more than their skin colour. Do heterosexual people chose to fancy girls? No of course not so why can't some people get their head around the idea that gay people feel the same way about people of their own sex?
The only difference is that you can spot a black person just be looking at them, unlike a gay person. Unless someone wants to argue that the only things you are born with are those we can all see at a glance, they are comparable. The other reason they are comparable, is because some years ago black and white people were not allowed to marry and were discouraged from mixing, and now they can marry and most people don't make a huge fuss about interracial couples. There are parallels between people opposed to against gay marriage today as those opposed to interracial marriage in the '50s, but society has moved on and the world didn't end and it wasn't the end of morality.
Yeah, cos it passed with an overwhelming majority.
Do you really agree with anything you write or are you just being cantakerous because i hurt your feelings?
You know full well why prop 8 passed, and it was all thanks to well funded Religious organisations spreading lies about the proposition in question. I was over there in CA when it was all going off, and some of the commerials they played were flat out ridiculous to anybody with even a modicum of sense.
Yes, on the same day that America elected a black president, black Americans voted to send gays to the back of the bus.
Good job on that.
Oddly enough you seem rather happy about it as well.. Mr "boom goes the dynamite"
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/11/06 16:27:05
We are arming Syrian rebels who support ISIS, who is fighting Iran, who is fighting Iraq who we also support against ISIS, while fighting Kurds who we support while they are fighting Syrian rebels.
mattyrm wrote:Oddly enough you seem rather happy about it as well.. Mr "boom goes the dynamite"
I just enjoy destroying poorly conceived arguments with facts. I'm not going to repeat my personal beliefs on the subject.
As to "hurting my feelings", don't flatter yourself. It's much more akin to a child screaming in the airplane seat behind me.
Howard A Treesong wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:Not that I accept your premise that being gay and being black are even remotely comparable in this context.
Why not? People don't choose their sexuality any more than their skin colour. Do heterosexual people chose to fancy girls? No of course not so why can't some people get their head around the idea that gay people feel the same way about people of their own sex?
The only difference is that you can spot a black person just be looking at them, unlike a gay person. Unless someone wants to argue that the only things you are born with are those we can all see at a glance, they are comparable. The other reason they are comparable, is because some years ago black and white people were not allowed to marry and were discouraged from mixing, and now they can marry and most people don't make a huge fuss about interracial couples. There are parallels between people opposed to against gay marriage today as those opposed to interracial marriage in the '50s, but society has moved on and the world didn't end and it wasn't the end of morality.
"Remotely" may have been a poor choice of words.
I am simply of the opinion that comparing the marriage issue to the hideous things that black people have had to deal with in this country trivializes the very real oppression that took place. Argue the case on it's own merits, not based on something that completely eclipses the issue in magnitude. I hope that clears any misunderstanding of my statement.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2010/11/06 16:52:01
Drink deeply and lustily from the foamy draught of evil.
W: 1.756 Quadrillion L: 0 D: 2
Haters gon' hate.
You can't tell if someone is gay by simply looking at them. Gays have never been enslaved, subject to discrimination of the same magnitude of what black people have had to deal with from the early history of this country(and the world, really) up until the very recent past and in some places still today.
So racism is worse than homophobia today because black people were enslaved in the past and gay people were not? This is about prejudice taken on it's own merits. Prejudice should not be defended it should be overcome. People don't 'choose' to be black, they don't 'choose' to be gay. There is not more rationale for disliking black people as there is gay people, it's all based on ignorance and preconceived ideas about people they've never met. I have no desire to start a competition over which is worse, the point is to draw parallels between two fears, or prejudices based on things that people are born with and have no rational basis.
There are lots of things people have that can't identify at a glance. You can't tell if a person is mentally ill or seriously ill just by looking at them. There's still no excuse for being prejudiced against them. They may not have suffered hundreds of years of enslavement, but that doesn't mean that the prejudice against them is not as irrational as racism or homophobia.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/11/06 16:36:21
mattyrm wrote:Oddly enough you seem rather happy about it as well.. Mr "boom goes the dynamite"
I just enjoy destroying poorly conceived arguments with facts.
As to "hurting my feelings", don't flatter yourself.
Howard A Treesong wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:Not that I accept your premise that being gay and being black are even remotely comparable in this context.
Why not? People don't choose their sexuality any more than their skin colour. Do heterosexual people chose to fancy girls? No of course not so why can't some people get their head around the idea that gay people feel the same way about people of their own sex?
The only difference is that you can spot a black person just be looking at them, unlike a gay person. Unless someone wants to argue that the only things you are born with are those we can all see at a glance, they are comparable. The other reason they are comparable, is because some years ago black and white people were not allowed to marry and were discouraged from mixing, and now they can marry and most people don't make a huge fuss about interracial couples. There are parallels between people opposed to against gay marriage today as those opposed to interracial marriage in the '50s, but society has moved on and the world didn't end and it wasn't the end of morality.
"Remotely" may have been a poor choice of words.
I am simply of the opinion that comparing the marriage issue to the hideous things that black people have had to deal with in this country trivializes the very real oppression that took place. Argue the case on it's own merits, not based on something that completely eclipses the issue in magnitude. I hope that clears any misunderstanding of my statement.
Your second quote kinda falsifies your first one there.. nice job though.
Oh and thats the second time you insisted i didnt hurt your feelings despite your constant emotional responses...
Do you want a hug?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2010/11/06 16:39:00
We are arming Syrian rebels who support ISIS, who is fighting Iran, who is fighting Iraq who we also support against ISIS, while fighting Kurds who we support while they are fighting Syrian rebels.
You can't tell if someone is gay by simply looking at them. Gays have never been enslaved, subject to discrimination of the same magnitude of what black people have had to deal with from the early history of this country(and the world, really) up until the very recent past and in some places still today.
So racism is worse than homophobia today because black people were enslaved in the past and gay people were not?
Nice strawman. If you're not going to actually read my posts...
I didn't say it was worse exactly, I said that it weakens the argument against homophobia by comparing it to something that is demonstrably more widespread and vicious.
Argue the case against homophobia on it's own merits. It has them.
Monster Rain wrote:
I didn't say it was worse, I said that it weakens the argument against homophobia by comparing it to something that is demonstrably more widespread and vicious.
In The USA in 2010 with a black president and a Proposition 8, i would disagree with that statement as well.
We are arming Syrian rebels who support ISIS, who is fighting Iran, who is fighting Iraq who we also support against ISIS, while fighting Kurds who we support while they are fighting Syrian rebels.
Damn internet died right after my initial response. BAH!
Orkeosaurus wrote:@Wrex:
I often have a little bit of trouble understanding what you're trying to say, but I think I get the gist of it.
I didn't realize it was a problem in general, but I understand that I was vague in the post you responded to.
It's certainly acceptable to say that a person is tolerant or intolerant of a specific action or characteristic. It's also certainly accurate to say that tolerance is essentially a matter of degree; a person can merely disapprove of something or they can start trying to blow it up, and the person may be considered intolerant of it in both cases. It seemed like you were also trying to say that to simply declare any criticism of intolerance in specific instances to be intolerant itself, and thus an invalid criticism, is irrational. I would agree with this, assuming that the criticism is something besides merely that person is guilty of "intolerance".
Or as an example this:
Person 1: Gays are disgusting. They should all be killed.
Person 2: That's intolerance! Intolerance is bad, you better shut your mouth!
Is bad argument, on the part of Person 2. He's contradicting himself, because he's intolerant of Person 1's opinion himself.
Yes, we can both agree that is not a great argument.
Alternatively, this:
Person 1: Gays are disgusting. They should all be killed.
Person 2: If it was legal to kill people on account of their being perceived as "disgusting" by random citizens, society would fall into chaos and endless bloodshed. Therefore you are being too intolerant, or you like to be stabbed.
Is good logic. Person 2 explains why intolerance in this instance is bad, rather than simply declaring it to be bad due to it being intolerance. Because he has condemned a specific instance of intolerance, rather than intolerance as a general concept, he's free from hypocrisy. Furthermore, if Person 1 disagrees with him, they now have a real subject to discuss, instead of endless bickering about ill-defined concepts. (I'm not intolerant! You're the one who's being intolerant! Intolerant of my freedom to have family values! Etc, etc.)
Sounds about right, and that is not to say that we have heard such suggestions in this thread.
Now, one could argue that "tolerance", as a virtue, isn't supposed to mean "tolerance of everything" but is rather supposed to mean "relative tolerance" or "tolerance in general". However, I see this definition as one that falls apart fairly quickly. Using this definition naturally requires us to establish what things a person who is "tolerant" is tolerant of specifically. However, because "tolerance" is being considered a virtue, every individual would want the pool of things that a person who is "tolerant" is tolerant of to correspond to the things that they themselves are tolerant of.
Relatively tolerant as compared to lifestyles and/or perspectives our culture has been used to.
You can be a generally and/or relatively tolerant person. You don't even have to compare yourself to a Nazi or some such nonsensical extreme to do so. In many cases you can simply look at the generation before you and notice the differences. I'm pretty sure we can agree on that.
What you would then get is, for instance, a liberal saying that the areas in which "tolerance" is important are homosexuality, recreational drug use, obscenity, and so forth, while a conservative says that the areas in which "tolerance" is important are gun ownership, traditional values, creationism, and so on. For every possible position a person may be tolerant towards (homosexuality) there exists a contrary position that a person cannot be tolerant of at the same time (the belief that homosexuality cannot be tolerated), so you can't merely add up the subjects a person is "tolerant" in and see who wins that way.
Wins what? Ideas shape society, and it is not, in my opinion, necessary to distinguish between the win/lose when it comes to culture.
I disagree with person A. They, in return, disagree with me. There is disagreement there. There are multiple scales involved concerning what tolerance means, and how you quantify it. Not to say that people actually measure tolerance/intolerance, but overall they do appear to do so. It may surprise some people when they really sit down and compare crimes and what they consider necessary punishments. It is pretty easy to say that you dislike something, but actually thinking through how much you dislike it can be difficult in many cases.
You could also theoretically define tolerance as "tolerance of things that are good for society", or something like that, but this inevitably simplifies to "tolerance of things which deserve to be tolerated", which is obviously begging the question.
In many cases it really seems to come down to how intolerant one should be in a given situation. Should there be a gang in SF running around exacting vigilante justice on gay bashers? Most would consider that a bad solution, but others would actually support the endeavor for various reasons. How similar are the vigilantes to the gay bashers? Many would be offended by my suggestion here, but it isn't hard to see why I would suggest that vigilante justice isn't exactly a reasoned response that will resolve a problem. It could very well cause many more problems. The story is from 1973 BTW, just to be clear.
Tolerance can clearly be an evasive concept, and I do not mean to suggest that one should do nothing but "be tolerant". You can be polite, and reasoned, and generally tolerant as well. You can measure your response before your deliver it, and in doing so you can recognize your own intolerance. Not to say that intolerance is never called for, but overall I do at least try to understand perspectives outside of my own. Clearly, I cannot accept every idea I hear, but one does not need to react in either extreme to be at least somewhat tolerant of other peoples view.
Some stuff I just flatly disagree with, though.
Oh boy, what a long, rambley post. Feel free to ignore it, folks!
I pretty much understood everything you were trying to say, but my net didn't feel like cooperating last night.
No need to ignore it, and it wasn't exactly rambling either, but it is discussing a pretty complicated issue. Often enough you actually need to draw much of this stuff out to make it clear. Oh, and I'm not a sociologist or some such either!
The important way to look at intolerance is to consider the degree to which it is private and personal, or affects other people and society as a whole.
For example, I don't like marzipan.
As an employer, should I be allowed to refuse employment to people who like marzipan?
Should people who like marzipan be allowed to refuse employment to people who dislike it?
What if marzipan is against kosher? What if it is a holy sacrament in the religion of Ba'hai?
Suppose I decide to campaign to have marzipan banned from distribution. There are plenty of people who love marzipan, but if they were the minority, they could lose their access to marzipan through the tyranny of the majority.
What if it is thought that liking marzipan pre-disposes men towards raping grandmothers (who bake a lot of cakes)?
Supposing it is discovered that marzipan makes you clever/stupid?
Moral debate aside... Takai was a great member of the Star Trek caste.
Mael-Dannan Ravenous Angels Tomb Kings Protectorate of Menoth
halonachos wrote:Mordo is evil, the cute walrus wearing a monocle is just a disguise for the evils within the confines of the avatar box.
darksage wrote:And then the darkness approached the computer screen ready to unveil untold horrors on millions of unsuspecting innocents... Some knew him as the bringer of terror...some knew him as the spawn of all things evil...some knew him as the walrus, but then their lives would account for nothing, for they would be dead in seconds of the words leaving their lips.The walrus has posted, prepare for the death of worlds.
Did I say I didn't like homosexuals? Did I say I didn't like drug users? Did I say I didn't like wife cheaters? NO..I said I didn't like the choices they made and don't feel comfortable around them. Manchu explained it really well, not sure why you can't understand that.
You seem to feel that because someone told you that homosexuals are born that way, that everyone else should just accept that view. And if they don't accept that narrow minded view they are bigots.
) be considered 'rubbing their nose in it'? Is this because the sexual advance is not welcomed? Because not all heterosexual advances are welcomed, either.
), but I WILL admit that I sometimes find the behaviour of some gay men and women to be pretty irritating. On the other hand, I often find it to be awesome.
It's much more akin to a child screaming in the airplane seat behind me.
Ravenous Angels 
Tomb Kings 
Protectorate of Menoth 
