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

[Finnboghi]

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.

I disagree. I believe there is an objective right and wrong of some sort.

But how?

I don't know. Why do you think philosophers argue so much?

Terri Schiavo is a good example - many people said she should be allowed to die in peace, others said they couldn't make that decision for her.

So which is objectively right?

And how do you determine it?

Do you go with the majority?

What the lawyers and politicians say?

Do you form a committee to decide?

The simple fact is, right and wrong must be subjective because no two people are the same.

1) If right and wrong are subjective, then they're not right and wrong: they are mere preferences.

2) Just because people are not the same does not mean right and wrong must be subjective anymore than the fact that no two people have the same fingerprints means fingerprints are not objective facts.

3) Terri Schaivo is a bad case--that was actually about the *objective* facts about whether or not she was brain dead or not.

That ties back to the whole issue - why does freedom of expression stop when you cross a certain line?

Why are you arguing about "freedom" after saying:

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.

In the Escapist World, the mods scream the loudest--why are you talking about freedom of expression on an internet message board when you just denied the objective truth of women being equal to men?

I'm starting to feel attacked on more of a personal level than an intellectual level here.

Philosophers argue so much because things are subjective.

If everything was concrete and objective, we wouldn't have philosophers - only scientists. (Keeping in mind I am a scientist - I find philosophers kind of weird.)

1) Exactly. Right and wrong are preferences.

2) Finger prints are not objective facts; they are distinctive facts. Also, finger prints are concrete - opinions are not.

3) Whether she was conscious or not wasn't where the issue came from;

If she was conscious and wanted to live, she couldn't express it.
If she was conscious and wanted to die, she couldn't express it.
If she was unconscious, she couldn't express it.

The objective question of whether she was conscious or not is irrelevant - the subjective question of whether she should be kept alive, regardless of mental state, is a matter for debate. There's a reason people tell their spouses "If I'm ever in a vegetative state, I want you to..."; this opinion differs from person to person, and is therefore subjective.

...Now you're just putting words in my mouth.

In your quote of what I said about the differences in equality between the Western World and the Middle East, I never once said freedom.

I also never denied women being equal to men - I was showing both sides of the same argument.

Nor did I express my personal views on the subject.

If you really want them, here they are;

I believe that men and women are equivalent, and should be treated as such - however, I don't believe men and women are equal.

Of course both men and women deserve the same rights, but men and women are provably different - not to say one is better, we're just different.

Also, equivalent ≠ equal.

 

[Lazier Than Thou]

My experience with people talking about different topics leads me to believe it's not that special. It certainly isn't unique and it damn sure ain't rare.

In the context of the OP, it's special--whether rare/unique or not--because I think the reaction of people to racism assumes that the person has thought the opinion through.

But unless the OP comes in and actually weighs in on the matter, THAT'S AN OPINION!

In your vocabulary; in mine, it's a statement of the facts which I believe to be supported by evidence. ;-D

What's inconsistent?

Your use of the word 'opinion' to that of others--you use it in a more narrow sense and your arguments don't go to the broader sense that they are using it in.

However, my problem isn't so much with semantics as it is with the basic underlying thought process brought out by the vocabulary.

Opinions, no matter how flagrantly aggravating it might be, cannot be regarded as wrong.

However you want to regard them, people are using the word 'opinion' in a broader sense than you. None of what you said is relevant to what the OP is saying (I think)--they are using the word 'opinion' in the sense you do not.

This is why we have dictionaries, so people don't have to have opinions on words!

Dictionaries don't really help--think of the issues surrounding the word 'theory' as in 'evolution is only a theory'.

Evolution IS a theory. The only opinion on that is the use of the word "only" which suggests that a theory is lower than something else. Not only that, but evolution will remain a theory for the hundreds of thousands of years necessary to obtain conclusive data on the subject, by which time I'll be happily dead and out of the argument. Damn scientists and creationists both, you unyielding bastards!

I'd end it here, but I have to ask: What is different in my supposed opinion on the definition of opinion as opposed to the definitions of other peoples?

 

[Lazier Than Thou]

It's not just with rascism.
For example I support fascism but if I ever mention it (on the internet not in real life) I get people calling me a nazi or rascist or whatever, so intolorance doesn't just cover rascist issues.

That's because fascism of various stripes has been shown to lead to the deaths of millions of people. Like it all you want, it's been "proven" that fascism leads to death on a massive scale.

Yes, but isn't this the point of the thread, people who are rascist have their reasons same way I think fascism is the best type of government (Nazism gives it a bad image in my opinion). The point of this thread is to say why people are intolorant towards controversial opinions.

No, I agree and understand. Generally, I just don't talk to communists and people on the left because we don't really agree on much. Still, I can't say they're wrong, I just don't agree with them.

 

[Finnboghi]

A simple way of looking at it is this;

I have the right to choose who I interact sexually with (of those who attempt to interact sexually with me).
He has the right to choose who he attempts to interact sexually with.

The difference here is consent.

I don't get to choose which girls I have sex with - I get to choose which girls I talk to.

Whereas two people expressing their opinions (i.e. doing the same thing), and one of them being fired for it (i.e. not the same recourse), is a violation of the right to expression of opinion - either neither should be fired, or both should.

But co-workers don't fire each other--if someone can fire you, they're not just a co-worker, they're a 'boss' of some sort. And the argument would be (I'm not making it, just bringing it up) a boss gets to hire anyone they want--bosses have to 'consent' to allowing people to work for them.

What happens when the right of a boss to hire and fire who he pleases comes into conflict with a worker's right of expression.

I didn't say co-workers fire each other; I said co-workers can get you fired. And it doesn't have to involve the right of expression - if I disagree with a female coworker, she can have me fired and potentially arrested just by saying I sexually harassed her. Doesn't mean I did, but the employer and police generally take action first and ask questions later.

And bosses don't have the right to hire and fire who they please (note you used he, and yet you accuse me of saying men and women aren't equal. ).

In order to hire someone, an employer must ensure that the potential employee is legally able to work in the employer's jurisdiction, is aware of the risks associated with the job, has the necessary skills for the job, isn't violating any anti-discrimination laws (kind of a bad example, since it's what we're talking about), and dozens of other small details.

Nor can they fire whomever they please - an employer must have legitimate reason and, ideally, precedence in order to fire an employee.

 

[KaiRai]

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?

That's a pretty extreme opinion. That's like saying "Anyone who buys a Prius should be forced to live in a field"
I think you just took it a little far. Freedom of speech only has so much hold...

 

[historybuff]

Because it's wrong.

Plain and simple. I understand that society has become so politically correct that, for some, it's difficult anymore to tell what's right and wrong.

But racism is wrong. Just like murder is wrong. And molesting children is wrong. You're hurting someone else for your own benefit. That's wrong.

 

[Vanguard_Ex]

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 that sort of thinking has been proven by history to have horrific effects, and as George Santayana timelessly said:
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it"

 

[Seanchaidh]

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."

By doing that you removed the normative component; you're no longer talking about what should be but what is. Are you saying that any claim of 'should be' can be evaluated as true or false based on what in fact is the case?

No, the normative component is still there--the racist isn't talking about "what is"--the racist is arguing that the "what is" should change (repeal of 13th Am., etc.) to line up with the normative claim about the rights of black people as they are, not as they are currently recognized to be.

What I'm saying is any claim of 'should be' can be tied to some sort of normative statement where the "are" doesn't describe how the world is, but rather, describes some essential nature of the things in the world which the world doesn't recognize and act in accordance with.

For example, think of how "people shouldn't steal" can be tied to the statement "people continue to own their property even when they cannot stop people from taking it"

Ownership is a matter of social convention, though;

No, it's also used as a normative concept--that's the way I'm using it here.

ok, but my point still stands, just without that line of additional explanation. Matters of social convention are also normative. That's not a statement of fact, then. So what is your point? What is there that is an essential nature of things in the world that is also a normative concept? Is ownership an example? I may just be too much of a materialist to find what you're saying intelligible.

 

[Anomynous 167]

No, opinions start to become a problem when they involve harm or infringing on another person's rights. That's why we consider racists and murderers to be the scum of the Earth.

So what you are trying to say is that everyone is the scum of the Earth? Since you did watch Avenue Q right?

But saying that Hitler was right doesn't make you wrong. Saying that one group of people is inferior doesn't make you wrong. Many people disagreeing with you doesn't even make you wrong.

It's an opinion which, by definition, cannot be wrong as it doesn't have to be based on fact or reality.

How is saying one group of people is inferior to another wrong? You didn't even give any context. "The question is who is better than who?" and "What is who better than who at?". With out answering those questions, you can't automatically asume that something is absolutely wrong.

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.

You have put in sentences, is the message that I would try to say but make me look like an incomprehensable dick head.

Being tolerant sort of ends at being tolerant of intolerance, because to try take it beyond that is demonstrably stupid.

But to be intollerent to intollerent, only shows your intollerence

Because a black person is the same as a white guy it's just a difference in skin color, it's a fact. You can judge all you want but there's no proof saying there's any difference besides some physical differences. You can think that a black guy/gal isn't as attractive, but to say a wavelength of light is the same as a human being is stupid, humans have self awareness and intelligence, light waves DO NOT.

I'd like to see you prove that a light wave isn't intelligent.

Because it's wrong.

Plain and simple. I understand that society has become so politically correct that, for some, it's difficult anymore to tell what's right and wrong.

But racism is wrong. Just like murder is wrong. And molesting children is wrong. You're hurting someone else for your own benefit. That's wrong.

Again, I'd like to bring up Avenue Q, so by your logic, we are all wrong. Your a little bit racist, it's true. I'm a little bit racist too. Everyone is racist... In a way.

 

[FROGGEman2]

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?

There was a South Park episode on this. It was extraordinary. It basically said that, yes, given the opportunity people (in this case, white people) will say that it is racist to discriminate against people who said "******". It then went on to say, given this opportunity, people will abuse this. And it was true.

...So, like, it's not wrong, but it is dangerous.

 

[Seanchaidh]

I'd like to see you prove that a light wave isn't intelligent.

This isn't something that ought to be proven, but rather something that should be observed. But I'll go ahead and try to prove it anyway.

1)Intelligent things can act on their own or have a will, so to speak.
2)Light waves can be predictably controlled by manipulating physical--

can't do it, nevermind. I'm a compatibilist: this line of reasoning will not end well.

 

[Meemaimoh]

I agree with the OP 100%. I hate racism but, moreso, I hate the lack of freedom for people to say what they want.

I think anyone who is so sensitive that they can't allow another person their views needs to grow a thicker skin. And no, I'm not a white boy. I've had to grow a thick skin in my time.

Saying is different to doing, though, of course.

 

[Remleiz]

To semi quote Big Gay Al from south park:

"Freedom and acceptance is a two way street, if im allowed to believe and act how i want, then people should be allowed to have their beliefs and act accordingly if they believe my way is wrong"

 

[Samurai Goomba]

That's because "people say they are open minded and don't try to force their opinions on others" are generally not doing any original thinking. They heard that one time, and decided that was the only way to be a tolerant or open minded person. So they just say it without really thinking about it.

They're only thinking about issues where you find that all sides are basically in pursuit of the same goal, like a left wing and a right wing person who both want 'freedom' they just disagree on how to set up a government to promote freedom. They're not thinking about an issue like "black people...should be made into slaves" because, well, they're not thinking--they're just repeating a phrase they've uncritically accepted. It has no actual meaning--it's more like a badge their wearing than a thought they've actually grappled with.

I agree. "Acceptance" is a great hypocrisy of our time. People like to talk about it, but when push comes to shove, nobody is truly accepting of anyone they disagree with. Not to mention the (as you mentioned) times when an opinion is so extreme as to be almost action. Like with militant racists who talk about all the stuff they believe.

That said, I think racists have the right to say what they believe. But that's it. And everyone else has a right to respond with their opinions on the subject.