What. The. Fcuk?

[TANGODANCER]

That is where I disagree. I don't agree that ALL opinions are valid. Everyone's opinion is valid because we accept everybody is equal. Therefore only opinions which don't state that not everyone is equal, are valid, if that makes sense? Whilst disagreeing I don't think wanting to lower or even stop immigration for economic reasons is 'wrong'. Wanting to stop immigration because one believes foreigners are inferior IS wrong. There is no parallel argument against homosexuality. If you are against it it is because you think it is 'wrong'. That is wrong.

Now, in the light of free speech and all that Pru, and based on what you believe or dont, that, is surely, a matter of opinion and not a law? There is a deeply seated moral aspect in lots of people that don't condemn, but equally don't condone. Your own beliefs are based entirely upon your own view, not some law of society. I'd like to be clear on that point.

[Puskas]

I dont see the relevance of the le pen/bnp thing. Was he going to burn all homosexuals or something?

I mentioned Le Pen as an example of how apathy can let a far right neo nazi, holocaust denier, mental racist get to the brink of power. He is against gay rights and has certainly been accused of making inflammatory remarks about gays, though I can't find any direct quotes. Up until 1995 the BNP included in their manifesto that they wanted to re-criminalise homosexuality, and although this has been taken out, they opposed civil partnerships, and several members have expressed sentiments that homosexuality is not good for society.

Nice lot arent they? However that is their view and they are perfectly entitled to it. Just because you disagree does not mean it should be supressed.

That is where I disagree. I don't agree that ALL opinions are valid. Everyone's opinion is valid because we accept everybody is equal. Therefore only opinions which don't state that not everyone is equal, are valid, if that makes sense? Whilst disagreeing I don't think wanting to lower or even stop immigration for economic reasons is 'wrong'. Wanting to stop immigration because one believes foreigners are inferior IS wrong. There is no parallel argument against homosexuality. If you are against it it is because you think it is 'wrong'. That is wrong.

That wasn't the point being made, though, was it?

Not all opinions are valid - to say otherwise is simply ridiculous cultural relativism.

However that doesn't mean invalid opinions should be supressed. Indeed, in a democracy, surely they should be allowed to be expressed - and then argued against?

[Prufrock]

I've actually forgotten what the thread was all about.

I think the original point has long gone.

But I think in a roundabout way Prufrock trying to tell us he's a poofter.

See that's just another example of lazy sterotyping and casual homoph....only joking. An accusation often pointed at the left, and people ranting like I just have is that there is no sense of humour, and I don't think the two have to be mutually exclusive. In much the same way you can be right wing and not be a mental racist. Praps 'mates' is too strong a word, but in a community such as this one, there's no reason discussions such as this can't be done in a light hearted way, where we both know you are joking ( I think ). But whilst 99 % of people reading this and browsing this forum might agree that homophobia and racism are wrong, if only one or two didn't, and read the discussion and re-evaluated perceptions I think that is a good thing.

And you're just in denial.

[Puskas]

And you're just in denial.

That's not right - I don't think SJM has ever been to Egypt.

[Prufrock]

I dont see the relevance of the le pen/bnp thing. Was he going to burn all homosexuals or something?

I mentioned Le Pen as an example of how apathy can let a far right neo nazi, holocaust denier, mental racist get to the brink of power. He is against gay rights and has certainly been accused of making inflammatory remarks about gays, though I can't find any direct quotes. Up until 1995 the BNP included in their manifesto that they wanted to re-criminalise homosexuality, and although this has been taken out, they opposed civil partnerships, and several members have expressed sentiments that homosexuality is not good for society.

Nice lot arent they? However that is their view and they are perfectly entitled to it. Just because you disagree does not mean it should be supressed.

That is where I disagree. I don't agree that ALL opinions are valid. Everyone's opinion is valid because we accept everybody is equal. Therefore only opinions which don't state that not everyone is equal, are valid, if that makes sense? Whilst disagreeing I don't think wanting to lower or even stop immigration for economic reasons is 'wrong'. Wanting to stop immigration because one believes foreigners are inferior IS wrong. There is no parallel argument against homosexuality. If you are against it it is because you think it is 'wrong'. That is wrong.

That wasn't the point being made, though, was it?

Not all opinions are valid - to say otherwise is simply ridiculous cultural relativism.

However that doesn't mean invalid opinions should be supressed. Indeed, in a democracy, surely they should be allowed to be expressed - and then argued against?

But how does that happen? It is an offence in this country to incite racial hatred, should it not be one to incite hatred on the grounds of sexuality?

I am of the opinion that all opinions under the sun are should be allowed to be expressed, as long as those opinions don't state a minority is inferior based on factors out of their control. That is why I object so fervently to this talk and the views of this Dr.

[Prufrock]

And you're just in denial.

That's not right - I don't think SJM has ever been to Egypt.

Damn you, I wanted to get that in somehow, but it would have involved a convoluted way of doing it. Well at least such a magnificent pun got the airing it deserved.

[Worthy4England]

I dont see the relevance of the le pen/bnp thing. Was he going to burn all homosexuals or something?

I mentioned Le Pen as an example of how apathy can let a far right neo nazi, holocaust denier, mental racist get to the brink of power. He is against gay rights and has certainly been accused of making inflammatory remarks about gays, though I can't find any direct quotes. Up until 1995 the BNP included in their manifesto that they wanted to re-criminalise homosexuality, and although this has been taken out, they opposed civil partnerships, and several members have expressed sentiments that homosexuality is not good for society.

Nice lot arent they? However that is their view and they are perfectly entitled to it. Just because you disagree does not mean it should be supressed.

That is where I disagree. I don't agree that ALL opinions are valid. Everyone's opinion is valid because we accept everybody is equal. Therefore only opinions which don't state that not everyone is equal, are valid, if that makes sense? Whilst disagreeing I don't think wanting to lower or even stop immigration for economic reasons is 'wrong'. Wanting to stop immigration because one believes foreigners are inferior IS wrong. There is no parallel argument against homosexuality. If you are against it it is because you think it is 'wrong'. That is wrong.

No it isn't. People are fully entitled to believe within the confines of their own mind that homosexuals are better than hetrosexuals (or vice versa). Also within their own minds, they're entitled to think that they don't like Pakistanis, Australians, men/women from Mars etc. etc. What you are contesting is that they shouldn't be able to express that opinion. I believe that they should be able to express that opinion. I have no problems whatsoever with people expressing an opinion that says I'm inferior to them - it's their opinion. I might disagree with it, but they should be allowed to say it if they want.

Either way I don't actually care if someone thinks they're better than me and can't stop it unless we employ thought police.

[Prufrock]

I dont see the relevance of the le pen/bnp thing. Was he going to burn all homosexuals or something?

I mentioned Le Pen as an example of how apathy can let a far right neo nazi, holocaust denier, mental racist get to the brink of power. He is against gay rights and has certainly been accused of making inflammatory remarks about gays, though I can't find any direct quotes. Up until 1995 the BNP included in their manifesto that they wanted to re-criminalise homosexuality, and although this has been taken out, they opposed civil partnerships, and several members have expressed sentiments that homosexuality is not good for society.

Nice lot arent they? However that is their view and they are perfectly entitled to it. Just because you disagree does not mean it should be supressed.

That is where I disagree. I don't agree that ALL opinions are valid. Everyone's opinion is valid because we accept everybody is equal. Therefore only opinions which don't state that not everyone is equal, are valid, if that makes sense? Whilst disagreeing I don't think wanting to lower or even stop immigration for economic reasons is 'wrong'. Wanting to stop immigration because one believes foreigners are inferior IS wrong. There is no parallel argument against homosexuality. If you are against it it is because you think it is 'wrong'. That is wrong.

No it isn't. People are fully entitled to believe within the confines of their own mind that homosexuals are better than hetrosexuals (or vice versa). Also within their own minds, they're entitled to think that they don't like Pakistanis, Australians, men/women from Mars etc. etc. What you are contesting is that they shouldn't be able to express that opinion. I believe that they should be able to express that opinion. I have no problems whatsoever with people expressing an opinion that says I'm inferior to them - it's their opinion. I might disagree with it, but they should be allowed to say it if they want.

Either way I don't actually care if someone thinks they're better than me and can't stop it unless we employ thought police.

Fair enough, I could have expressed that better, but yes I do believe that the expression of views that one minority is inferior to another is wrong. If you disagree fair enough, as long as you don't think I'm inferior for thinking it

[Worthy4England]

Fair enough, I could have expressed that better, but yes I do believe that the expression of views that one minority is inferior to another is wrong. If you disagree fair enough, as long as you don't think I'm inferior for thinking it

In the spirit of free speech that we appear not to have agreed, can I put forward an opinion that bloody students should spend more of my taxpayer pounds actually studying instead of talking bollocks on here? You can read that as studenist if you want...

[Prufrock]

Fair enough, I could have expressed that better, but yes I do believe that the expression of views that one minority is inferior to another is wrong. If you disagree fair enough, as long as you don't think I'm inferior for thinking it

In the spirit of free speech that we appear not to have agreed, can I put forward an opinion that bloody students should spend more of my taxpayer pounds actually studying instead of talking bollocks on here? You can read that as studenist if you want...

See in reality you should be happy, coz what I'm doing right now is wasting french taxpayers money not going to uni. That's whilst they are on strike costing themselves their own tax money. In the spirit of xenophobia that should surely be encouraged? Admittedly I am still spending some British tax payers money through a loan and a bursary. But the loan gets paid back plus interest in the form of the rate of inflation (which given our seeming journey into 1930's Germany territory fecking scares me), and the bursary comes from the EU, so at least Jeanny L'étranger is paying for that too.

[Montreal Wanderer]

No it isn't. People are fully entitled to believe within the confines of their own mind that homosexuals are better than hetrosexuals (or vice versa). Also within their own minds, they're entitled to think that they don't like Pakistanis, Australians, men/women from Mars etc. etc. What you are contesting is that they shouldn't be able to express that opinion. I believe that they should be able to express that opinion. I have no problems whatsoever with people expressing an opinion that says I'm inferior to them - it's their opinion. I might disagree with it, but they should be allowed to say it if they want.

Either way I don't actually care if someone thinks they're better than me and can't stop it unless we employ thought police.

The trouble is Worthy, while there may be nothing wrong in us expressing the opinion we are better than you - and who could blame us? - these expressions of opinion sometimes turn into action as the mob gets stirred up. "No Irish need apply", "I won't rent to a Paki", "I think I'll bash a queer tonight", etc. When free speech generates hatred, it should be suppressed.

[Worthy4England]

Fair enough, I could have expressed that better, but yes I do believe that the expression of views that one minority is inferior to another is wrong. If you disagree fair enough, as long as you don't think I'm inferior for thinking it

In the spirit of free speech that we appear not to have agreed, can I put forward an opinion that bloody students should spend more of my taxpayer pounds actually studying instead of talking bollocks on here? You can read that as studenist if you want...

the bursary comes from the EU, so at least Jeanny L'étranger is paying for that too.

That's a bit like my daughter arguing that her money has come from my wife not me.

UK gives the EU 13.7bn Euros and gets back 8.2bn (diff -5.5bn)

France gives the EU 17.3bn and gets back 13.4bn (diff - 3.9bn)

It's come out of my part of the -1.6bn difference that the UK put in...

[Prufrock]

Fair enough, I could have expressed that better, but yes I do believe that the expression of views that one minority is inferior to another is wrong. If you disagree fair enough, as long as you don't think I'm inferior for thinking it

In the spirit of free speech that we appear not to have agreed, can I put forward an opinion that bloody students should spend more of my taxpayer pounds actually studying instead of talking bollocks on here? You can read that as studenist if you want...

the bursary comes from the EU, so at least Jeanny L'étranger is paying for that too.

That's a bit like my daughter arguing that her money has come from my wife not me.

UK gives the EU 13.7bn Euros and gets back 8.2bn (diff -5.5bn)

France gives the EU 17.3bn and gets back 13.4bn (diff - 3.9bn)

It's come out of my part of the -1.6bn difference that the UK put in...

Haha fair enough, but then the fact that the French are striking whinging bastards and I've experienced that first hand means I've been discouraged from coming working here means that instead if potentially losing my tax for the rest of my life, I will instead be paying it in England to pay your pension. Makes it seem worthwile non? That's without pointing out my year abroad means I'll have more skills to help our economy with...

[Worthy4England]

No it isn't. People are fully entitled to believe within the confines of their own mind that homosexuals are better than hetrosexuals (or vice versa). Also within their own minds, they're entitled to think that they don't like Pakistanis, Australians, men/women from Mars etc. etc. What you are contesting is that they shouldn't be able to express that opinion. I believe that they should be able to express that opinion. I have no problems whatsoever with people expressing an opinion that says I'm inferior to them - it's their opinion. I might disagree with it, but they should be allowed to say it if they want.

Either way I don't actually care if someone thinks they're better than me and can't stop it unless we employ thought police.

The trouble is Worthy, while there may be nothing wrong in us expressing the opinion we are better than you - and who could blame us? - these expressions of opinion sometimes turn into action as the mob gets stirred up. "No Irish need apply", "I won't rent to a Paki", "I think I'll bash a queer tonight", etc. When free speech generates hatred, it should be suppressed.

So I have a corner shop and I'm determined that no Irish people are going to be employed by me, the only difference between now and the dark ages is that I can't put a sign up to say it. Realistically the chances of any racial discrimination claim are probably fairly slim.

Don't get me wrong, if I employ 15,000 people and have an office in Dublin and still employ no Irish people, then there's probably a decent case to be made.

But underneath the surface, if I happened to really hate the Irish, nothing anyone can do by way of legislation is ever going to stop me doing that - so it's all a bit of lip service.

Can we "cure" irrational hatred any easier than we can "cure" homosexuality? I don't believe so. It's a natural reaction in some folk - like some people are more naturally violent than others.

[Prufrock]

No it isn't. People are fully entitled to believe within the confines of their own mind that homosexuals are better than hetrosexuals (or vice versa). Also within their own minds, they're entitled to think that they don't like Pakistanis, Australians, men/women from Mars etc. etc. What you are contesting is that they shouldn't be able to express that opinion. I believe that they should be able to express that opinion. I have no problems whatsoever with people expressing an opinion that says I'm inferior to them - it's their opinion. I might disagree with it, but they should be allowed to say it if they want.

Either way I don't actually care if someone thinks they're better than me and can't stop it unless we employ thought police.

The trouble is Worthy, while there may be nothing wrong in us expressing the opinion we are better than you - and who could blame us? - these expressions of opinion sometimes turn into action as the mob gets stirred up. "No Irish need apply", "I won't rent to a Paki", "I think I'll bash a queer tonight", etc. When free speech generates hatred, it should be suppressed.

Precicely. I have just expounded (at our resident Dutch speaking lawyers behest) on my views on equality and liberty in the politics thread. They are the foundation of my beliefs, but in reality they are not as easy to marry as they would sound. This is going to sound odd when talking about Nazi Germany, but liberty prevailed at the expense of equality. By which I mean the liberty to exress and push horrible views as a group resulted in the horrific oppression of minorities as they were re-classified as inferior. Interestingly people argue the opposite is the case with some modern democracies, with the US as an oft quoted example. Once a consenssus is reached, no further questioning of that is allowed, and an opposition to that view is to be an outcast. A good example of equality prevailing over liberty is when the PC movement, as it sometimes does, goes too far. I believe in freedom of expression as long as it doesn't generate hatred or inequality.

[Prufrock]

No it isn't. People are fully entitled to believe within the confines of their own mind that homosexuals are better than hetrosexuals (or vice versa). Also within their own minds, they're entitled to think that they don't like Pakistanis, Australians, men/women from Mars etc. etc. What you are contesting is that they shouldn't be able to express that opinion. I believe that they should be able to express that opinion. I have no problems whatsoever with people expressing an opinion that says I'm inferior to them - it's their opinion. I might disagree with it, but they should be allowed to say it if they want.

Either way I don't actually care if someone thinks they're better than me and can't stop it unless we employ thought police.

The trouble is Worthy, while there may be nothing wrong in us expressing the opinion we are better than you - and who could blame us? - these expressions of opinion sometimes turn into action as the mob gets stirred up. "No Irish need apply", "I won't rent to a Paki", "I think I'll bash a queer tonight", etc. When free speech generates hatred, it should be suppressed.

So I have a corner shop and I'm determined that no Irish people are going to be employed by me, the only difference between now and the dark ages is that I can't put a sign up to say it. Realistically the chances of any racial discrimination claim are probably fairly slim.

Don't get me wrong, if I employ 15,000 people and have an office in Dublin and still employ no Irish people, then there's probably a decent case to be made.

But underneath the surface, if I happened to really hate the Irish, nothing anyone can do by way of legislation is ever going to stop me doing that - so it's all a bit of lip service.

Can we "cure" irrational hatred any easier than we can "cure" homosexuality? I don't believe so. It's a natural reaction in some folk - like some people are more naturally violent than others.

Irrational hatred feeds on fear, feeds on the need for a scapegoat, and feeds most of all on ignorance. One person says something a bit edgy in a pub to do with race, or sexuality, or whatever, and a mob mentality develops and from there people solidify their fears and prejudices. We need to stand up and say, 'what? that's bollocks'. People opinions are massively influenced by those of others, unchecked they reach a pitch beyond reasoned argument, questioned ignorance and hatred can be fought. You'll never completely beat bigotry and ignorance, but to aim for perfection and acheive improvement is surely better than sit in silence and what until it is your turn to be persecuted. Pastor Niemoller's 'First they came for..' is worth bearing in mind.

[Montreal Wanderer]

No it isn't. People are fully entitled to believe within the confines of their own mind that homosexuals are better than hetrosexuals (or vice versa). Also within their own minds, they're entitled to think that they don't like Pakistanis, Australians, men/women from Mars etc. etc. What you are contesting is that they shouldn't be able to express that opinion. I believe that they should be able to express that opinion. I have no problems whatsoever with people expressing an opinion that says I'm inferior to them - it's their opinion. I might disagree with it, but they should be allowed to say it if they want.

Either way I don't actually care if someone thinks they're better than me and can't stop it unless we employ thought police.

The trouble is Worthy, while there may be nothing wrong in us expressing the opinion we are better than you - and who could blame us? - these expressions of opinion sometimes turn into action as the mob gets stirred up. "No Irish need apply", "I won't rent to a Paki", "I think I'll bash a queer tonight", etc. When free speech generates hatred, it should be suppressed.

So I have a corner shop and I'm determined that no Irish people are going to be employed by me, the only difference between now and the dark ages is that I can't put a sign up to say it. Realistically the chances of any racial discrimination claim are probably fairly slim.

Don't get me wrong, if I employ 15,000 people and have an office in Dublin and still employ no Irish people, then there's probably a decent case to be made.

But underneath the surface, if I happened to really hate the Irish, nothing anyone can do by way of legislation is ever going to stop me doing that - so it's all a bit of lip service.

Can we "cure" irrational hatred any easier than we can "cure" homosexuality? I don't believe so. It's a natural reaction in some folk - like some people are more naturally violent than others.

Generally speaking you have a point. However, I believe we can diminish irrational hatred through education and legislation to some extent because they could be viewed as diseases of the mind. Indeed I think we have made a lot of progress even if PC appears to have gone mad. We cannot "cure" homosexuality for the many reasons listed above in this thread, nor should we try. Certainly it takes a long time to eliminate prejudice but it can be done. For example, we don't burn heretics any more - even Irish Catholics on this board like... Oh, I forget who.

[Worthy4England]

Irrational hatred feeds on fear, feeds on the need for a scapegoat, and feeds most of all on ignorance. One person says something a bit edgy in a pub to do with race, or sexuality, or whatever, and a mob mentality develops and from there people solidify their fears and prejudices. We need to stand up and say, 'what? that's bollocks'. People opinions are massively influenced by those of others, unchecked they reach a pitch beyond reasoned argument, questioned ignorance and hatred can be fought. You'll never completely beat bigotry and ignorance, but to aim for perfection and acheive improvement is surely better than sit in silence and what until it is your turn to be persecuted. Pastor Niemoller's 'First they came for..' is worth bearing in mind.

<sigh> get some bloody work done.

So we are allowed to supress the natural emotion of hatred, because some non-ignorant Western people say it's not acceptable? You have just been conditioned into thinking that because "Society" tells you it is so. So from someone with a natural talent for learning, it's absolutely fine and dandy.

However, my natural talent (hypothetically) is "law of the jungle and survival of the fittest". Perfectly natural traits of human nature. I'd much prefer a society that played to my strengths thanks, so I'll take off you weedy intellectuals what I need to survive. You're only right and I'm only wrong because the society we live in says it's so.

[Prufrock]

Irrational hatred feeds on fear, feeds on the need for a scapegoat, and feeds most of all on ignorance. One person says something a bit edgy in a pub to do with race, or sexuality, or whatever, and a mob mentality develops and from there people solidify their fears and prejudices. We need to stand up and say, 'what? that's bollocks'. People opinions are massively influenced by those of others, unchecked they reach a pitch beyond reasoned argument, questioned ignorance and hatred can be fought. You'll never completely beat bigotry and ignorance, but to aim for perfection and acheive improvement is surely better than sit in silence and what until it is your turn to be persecuted. Pastor Niemoller's 'First they came for..' is worth bearing in mind.

<sigh> get some bloody work done.

So we are allowed to supress the natural emotion of hatred, because some non-ignorant Western people say it's not acceptable? You have just been conditioned into thinking that because "Society" tells you it is so. So from someone with a natural talent for learning, it's absolutely fine and dandy.

However, my natural talent (hypothetically) is "law of the jungle and survival of the fittest". Perfectly natural traits of human nature. I'd much prefer a society that played to my strengths thanks, so I'll take off you weedy intellectuals what I need to survive. You're only right and I'm only wrong because the society we live in says it's so.

True but I get to tell you fables about brains over brawn and confuse you into living by my rules .

In the end you are right, it's true because society says so, but I'd like to think that's because it makes sense. If you wanted to go down that route you could have opened 3 pages back with 'morality is a human construct' and well, I'd have had no response. It's a human construct but one constructed for the good of humanity. We make rules like no murder, less hatred then the human race flourishes. Except then when things go wrong, we become more insular in our self preservation. Society's job for me is to stop that resluting in hatred. Or something. Anyway bugger work, I'm off for a baguette and a pint or six and watch Barca -Chelsea.

[Worthy4England]

Irrational hatred feeds on fear, feeds on the need for a scapegoat, and feeds most of all on ignorance. One person says something a bit edgy in a pub to do with race, or sexuality, or whatever, and a mob mentality develops and from there people solidify their fears and prejudices. We need to stand up and say, 'what? that's bollocks'. People opinions are massively influenced by those of others, unchecked they reach a pitch beyond reasoned argument, questioned ignorance and hatred can be fought. You'll never completely beat bigotry and ignorance, but to aim for perfection and acheive improvement is surely better than sit in silence and what until it is your turn to be persecuted. Pastor Niemoller's 'First they came for..' is worth bearing in mind.

<sigh> get some bloody work done.

So we are allowed to supress the natural emotion of hatred, because some non-ignorant Western people say it's not acceptable? You have just been conditioned into thinking that because "Society" tells you it is so. So from someone with a natural talent for learning, it's absolutely fine and dandy.

However, my natural talent (hypothetically) is "law of the jungle and survival of the fittest". Perfectly natural traits of human nature. I'd much prefer a society that played to my strengths thanks, so I'll take off you weedy intellectuals what I need to survive. You're only right and I'm only wrong because the society we live in says it's so.

True but I get to tell you fables about brains over brawn and confuse you into living by my rules .

In the end you are right, it's true because society says so, but I'd like to think that's because it makes sense. If you wanted to go down that route you could have opened 3 pages back with 'morality is a human construct' and well, I'd have had no response. It's a human construct but one constructed for the good of humanity. We make rules like no murder, less hatred then the human race flourishes. Except then when things go wrong, we become more insular in our self preservation. Society's job for me is to stop that resluting in hatred. Or something. Anyway bugger work, I'm off for a baguette and a pint or six and watch Barca -Chelsea.

I'm stunned - you've actually done less work this afternoon than a striking Frenchman....How can you say bugger work?