"Be accepting of others views" doesn't apply to racism?

[Finnboghi]

Because opinions, as they are, usually can't be considered right or wrong. But saying something like that is just, without a doubt, unequivocally wrong.

How can one opinion be considered right/wrong but not another? Why would I be wrong for saying that black people are inferior to white people, but not for saying that the color blue is inferior to the color red?

Because colors are differences in light and black people are human beings with darker skin and a mind unlike a shade of light. There's a bit of a difference, just a bit. By a bit I mean it's bloody different.

They're both opinions, aren't they? What makes one more objectionable than the other?

Because some people cry louder than others.

That is the ONLY reason that some opinions are wrong and some are right.

Any other reasoning is self-reassuring bullshit.

Let's take a modern view that differs between a lot of people;

Women's rights.

In the Western World, even hinting that women are inferior to men will almost sentence you to castration.

In the Muslim World, saying women are equal to men will get you killed.

So who's right?

Who's wrong?

Why are they so?

If you were in the other's shoes (i.e. in the opposite part of the world), would you still have the same views?

There are equal arguments for both sides;

Women are intelligent, hard-working, and generally dependable (just like men - ergo equality). Women have a higher "emotional IQ", which has been scientifically proven.

However, women are more emotional, less rational, and less adept at mathematical, scientific, and spatial reasoning. Another scientifically proven fact.

So why is one right and one wrong?

Because you say so?

Because you were told so?

No.

Because in the Western World, feminists scream loudest.

In the Muslim World, men scream loudest.

 

[AbsoluteVirtue18]

Because most racists don't accept or care about the views of others, so it's a tit for tat kinda thing.

 

[Lazier Than Thou]

The problem is that "Hitler made me happy" isn't an opinion it's a statement of fact. It has no bearing on if he's right or wrong.

I think you're kinda missing my point, but let me say this--you can turn "black people...should be made into slaves" into a statement of fact just by rearranging the words into "black people do not possess the same freedoms as other people."

Yes, arrangements of words matter. That's not the problem, though. The problem is that "black people should be made into slaves" is still an opinion and, as such, cannot be literally wrong. It can be shunned, it can be discouraged, it can be socially unacceptable, but it's not wrong.

Ethics don't come into the equation when you're talking about opinion. Opinions are a personal belief, not a fact.

You're getting confused on the difference between an opinion in the sense of one's preferences, tastes, etc. and an opinion as proposal about the state of reality. In the terms you're using here, "black people...should be made into slaves" isn't a "personal opinion" it's a fact someone believes.

Again I reiterate the problem of the skin color vs the color. While it is a statement of fact to say "I believe black people are subhuman to white people" the only fact in there is "I believe."

The only *certain* fact in there is "I believe." However, there is a *proposed* fact of "I believe black people are subhuman to white people."

You can stick "I believe" in front of anything a person believes--I mean, how else do we 'know' a fact? We 'believe' it.

A fact isn't a belief. A fact is something that is. As in: the sky IS blue. A belief, on the other hand, is a statement that is not fact, but thought to be true. As in: I believe white people are inferior to black people.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Since racism is making a round on the forums, I figure I may as well throw this in. When people say they are open minded and don't try to force their opinions on others, this usually doesn't include racism. If you went to work (or whatever your daily grind is) tomorrow and said openly that you hate black people and think they should be made into slaves, there wouldn't be a lot of people who would respond with "While I disagree with your opinion I respect it as your belief". Why is this not included?

Because even democracies have heresies. They just often treat them with social opprobrium rather than outright banning. Deciding to enslave people based on their race manages to violate all three of these Western democratic virtues: freedom, equality (before law), and due process. The United States and other nations have fought wars over this stuff many times. Our political disagreements will often be fought over our valuing one or the other more than the others, but denouncing all of them tends to be done only by those who would destroy our society if they could.

 

[deleted_scifidownbeat]

DELETED

 

[Lazier Than Thou]

Because opinions, as they are, usually can't be considered right or wrong. But saying something like that is just, without a doubt, unequivocally wrong.

How can one opinion be considered right/wrong but not another? Why would I be wrong for saying that black people are inferior to white people, but not for saying that the color blue is inferior to the color red?

Because colors are differences in light and black people are human beings with darker skin and a mind unlike a shade of light. There's a bit of a difference, just a bit. By a bit I mean it's bloody different.

They're both opinions, aren't they? What makes one more objectionable than the other?

Because some people cry louder than others.

That is the ONLY reason that some opinions are wrong and some are right.

Any other reasoning is self-reassuring bullshit.

Let's take a modern view that differs between a lot of people;

Women's rights.

In the Western World, even hinting that women are inferior to men will almost sentence you to castration.

In the Muslim World, saying women are equal to men will get you killed.

So who's right?

Who's wrong?

Why are they so?

If you were in the other's shoes (i.e. in the opposite part of the world), would you still have the same views?

There are equal arguments for both sides;

Women are intelligent, hard-working, and generally dependable (just like men - ergo equality). Women have a higher "emotional IQ", which has been scientifically proven.

However, women are more emotional, less rational, and less adept at mathematical, scientific, and spatial reasoning. Another scientifically proven fact.

So why is one right and one wrong?

Because you say so?

Because you were told so?

No.

Because in the Western World, feminists scream loudest.

In the Muslim World, men scream loudest.

Thank you. I completely agree.

 

[similar.squirrel]

You're entitled to that opinion, sure. Freedom of speech.
And the co-workers are entitled to call you every derogatory name in their repertoire and get you fired.
Freedom of speech is nice like that. Allows you to spot the idiots who you don't want to be around.

 

[Skeleon]

Um, the guy who wrote 'all men are created equal' had slaves--that was Thomas Jefferson.

That's like saying "we used to not give women the vote, so why is it wrong today?".
Times were different. Maybe we should live by the principles they tought instead of using their own failings as an excuse to avoid responsibility.

 

[No One Jones]

I think that has alot to do with group identity and the like. What appeals to people about being part of a group? Whatever it is they begin to value it and consider themselves an integral part of much larger entity that they, as an appendage, of said entity must defend. The much more visceral reaction comes around because people value ethnicity based on their inability to change it at will, unlike an abstract opinion.

 

[Finnboghi]

You're entitled to that opinion, sure. Freedom of speech.
And the co-workers are entitled to call you every derogatory name in their repertoire and get you fired.
Freedom of speech is nice like that. Allows you to spot the idiots who you don't want to be around.

So wait, why do the coworkers get more rights?

Of course they can say whatever they want about you.

But why are they allowed to get you fired?

What did they do that gives them the right to physically harm you (yes, I consider getting fired to be physical - money is necessary for physical sustenance)?

Is it because they're PC?

 

[Lazier Than Thou]

The problem is that "Hitler made me happy" isn't an opinion it's a statement of fact. It has no bearing on if he's right or wrong.

I think you're kinda missing my point, but let me say this--you can turn "black people...should be made into slaves" into a statement of fact just by rearranging the words into "black people do not possess the same freedoms as other people."

Yes, arrangements of words matter. That's not the problem, though. The problem is that "black people should be made into slaves" is still an opinion and, as such, cannot be literally wrong. It can be shunned, it can be discouraged, it can be socially unacceptable, but it's not wrong.

In a very technical sense. Thing is, why would someone have that opinion if they did not also hold the fact that "black people have less rights" to be the case?

A person can believe that white people should be made into slaves without believing that white people are inferior. All it means is that they believe it, probably because they're not a white person and are not effected by the opinion. It has nothing to do with thoughts of a factual nature or anything based upon reality.

This is the very problem people run into every time they talk about religion. It's all subjective, it's all guesswork, it's all opinion. Since no one knows the FACTS, people BELIEVE. They don't have to believe for any reason other than it makes them feel better. There need not be any underlying thought process.

A fact isn't a belief. A fact is something that is. As in: the sky IS blue. A belief, on the other hand, is a statement that is not fact, but thought to be true. As in: I believe white people are inferior to black people.

What about "I believe the sky is blue"?

See the issue now? Sure you can say an opinion is a statement thought to be true, but in a case like this, it's thought to be true because the people holds a certain fact to be true as well.[/quote]

A person can have an opinion on a fact. This doesn't change the individual fact, nor the individual opinion. The opinion is not wrong, the fact is wrong. Or right, however you want it.

 

[Finnboghi]

Because colors are differences in light and black people are human beings with darker skin and a mind unlike a shade of light. There's a bit of a difference, just a bit. By a bit I mean it's bloody different.

They're both opinions, aren't they? What makes one more objectionable than the other?

Because some people cry louder than others.

That is the ONLY reason that some opinions are wrong and some are right.

Any other reasoning is self-reassuring bullshit.

Let's take a modern view that differs between a lot of people;

Women's rights.

In the Western World, even hinting that women are inferior to men will almost sentence you to castration.

In the Muslim World, saying women are equal to men will get you killed.

So who's right?

Who's wrong?

Why are they so?

If you were in the other's shoes (i.e. in the opposite part of the world), would you still have the same views?

There are equal arguments for both sides;

Women are intelligent, hard-working, and generally dependable (just like men - ergo equality). Women have a higher "emotional IQ", which has been scientifically proven.

However, women are more emotional, less rational, and less adept at mathematical, scientific, and spatial reasoning. Another scientifically proven fact.

So why is one right and one wrong?

Because you say so?

Because you were told so?

No.

Because in the Western World, feminists scream loudest.

In the Muslim World, men scream loudest.

That's not the difference between right and wrong, though. That's a description of why certain people hold beliefs to be right and wrong. Big difference.

What?

That's completely the difference between right and wrong.

They're only abstract concepts which can be applied to a given action or belief.

Or a direction.

The difference between right and wrong is your opinion.

You can only have an opinion of you hold a belief about a given event or concept.

 

[Lazier Than Thou]

You're entitled to that opinion, sure. Freedom of speech.
And the co-workers are entitled to call you every derogatory name in their repertoire and get you fired.
Freedom of speech is nice like that. Allows you to spot the idiots who you don't want to be around.

So wait, why do the coworkers get more rights?

Of course they can say whatever they want about you.

But why are they allowed to get you fired?

What did they do that gives them the right to physically harm you (yes, I consider getting fired to be physical - money is necessary for physical sustenance)?

Is it because they're PC?

*DING* *DING* *DING*!

Someone said the magic words! "Political correctness!"

What prize do we have for him, Johnny!?

 

[Finnboghi]

You're entitled to that opinion, sure. Freedom of speech.
And the co-workers are entitled to call you every derogatory name in their repertoire and get you fired.
Freedom of speech is nice like that. Allows you to spot the idiots who you don't want to be around.

So wait, why do the coworkers get more rights?

Of course they can say whatever they want about you.

But why are they allowed to get you fired?

What did they do that gives them the right to physically harm you (yes, I consider getting fired to be physical - money is necessary for physical sustenance)?

Is it because they're PC?

In that case, someone who boycotts a certain merchant is physically harming them. The issue here is more about your definition of what constitutes physical harm than about 'rights'.

...You missed the point.

The simple fact of the matter is;

Person expresses their beliefs.
Coworker counters with expression of their beliefs.
Coworker gets Person fired for not sharing said beliefs.

How is that fair?