HOME | DD
TheAspiringWriter β To All who Say...
Published: 2012-06-08 15:17:26 +0000 UTC; Views: 2792; Favourites: 121; Downloads: 10
Redirect to original
Description
I think it is pretty self explanitory!
I plan on pressing this into a t-shirt...so I might be making quotes and such for them.
If you know of anywhere I can do that, and sell them or something that would be exteremly useful.
I sick of intolerance!
I think this will be a suiting place to put this!! [link]
Related content
Comments: 88
It's not going to happen.
In those people's eyes, atheists and gay people are not humans. To them, they are unnatural monsters who are out to destroy their way of life. Those people believe themselves to be under siege and engaged in a war of survival against the phantom enemy of 'Secular-Humanist Agenda' or 'Gay Agenda', a 'war' that they are willing to do anything to win. They want someone that they could designate as monsters in moral sense that they can compare themselves to and rail against, in order make themselves appear and feel better, to flaunt their moral superiority and devotion to whatever faith they nominally worship; atheists and gay people merely offer an easy target due to their status as an unusual minority that stands out from the conforming majority.
There will always be people who would persecute against atheists and gay people, because ultimately we humans are biologically hard-wired to hate; we want monsters to be real. And to those people, those monsters are real.Β
www.cracked.com/blog/5-reasonsβ¦
π: 0 β©: 1
I hate it when people say inserting a gay scene in a show is the "gay agenda", yet they want to put regular heterosexual kissing. (If they allow heterosexual kissing might as well add homosexual kissing!!!)
π: 0 β©: 0
lol thank you!
π: 0 β©: 1
You're welcome. Thank you for your swift actions within the group.
π: 0 β©: 1
π: 0 β©: 0
I can see that as a t-shirt. I think it would look pretty neat
π: 0 β©: 1
I actually queit like you know!
I am Soleil Socrates (Pen Name!)
Sorry for misunderstanding you. I guess it was the tone that was off in my head!
Sorry!
π: 0 β©: 1
No problem, the internet's not the best place to express certain topics in a proper manner.
It's hard to convey the tone in text is what I'm getting at
π: 0 β©: 1
Ahahha yeah, that is why I always make sure I have no swears, and if I do I shall hint sarcasim or something!
Ahahaha, I am glad you think this would look good as a shirt, that is what I plan on it being!
π: 0 β©: 0
I don't mind religion or traditional values, in fact many traditions I'm quite fond of, but the ones that single out minority groups for seemingly no practical reason, those need to change. It's never made sense to me that the way for someone to achieve eternal happiness after they die is to make sure someone else who doesn't think like them is miserable.
π: 0 β©: 1
I totally agree, I am so fine if you are religious but when you hate others because of it, I do not like it! Exactly my idea!
π: 0 β©: 0
I think if we had no religion, traditions or ANYTHING that makes us different, we could leave in a boring but violence-free world.
π: 0 β©: 1
Totally agree!
π: 0 β©: 1
glad you agree!
π: 0 β©: 0
Unfortunately, something like this does open you to hypocracy. As some other guy said in the comments, 'Not very tolerant of the intolerant are we?'
While it's a bit of a mirror-image, it's an unfortunately impossible argument to solve.
π: 0 β©: 3
What argument? and explain where the hypocrisy is?
π: 0 β©: 1
The argument was few comments below (or above, depending on your comment orientation).
The unfortunate 'preaching tolerance, and thus being intolerant of those who are also intolerant' argument.
Please do not mistake me for taking sides, I am in a neutral stance here to avoid any implications otherwise. I don't want to start an argument again - I've already won one on this comment thread, proving my current stance, and I can't really be bothered to do another.
π: 0 β©: 2
hey now! if you're referring to our argument, then no, you didn't win anything. I just didn't feel like going in circles. These arguments always go in circles.
You said: "Ah yes, you can also stop with the hypocracy. I have not put words in your mouth"
Even though in your first reply you actually did put words into my mouth, you said: "You are once again proposing true communism, a social ideology" (something your whole argument was based on), which I clearly didn't, then later you said it was just an example... "I used communism and capitalism to make a point - they are examples" hypocrisy much?, and I explained what I actually meant later on, something you've ignored (along many of my points) going on about your "neutral stance" and "Know thine enemy." (which made no sense because of what I already wrote).
Again, all you want is to "present", neutrally of course, the point that it's not very tolerant to not tolerate the intolerant, and again I say that it's all just semantics, useless pseudo-philosophy, it's some kind of paradox. How can we as a human race survive if we would start tolerating the intolerant? Which this point you're neutrally presenting, like it or not, suggests, because it criticizes the intolerant people fighting for a good cause (in the past, equal rights for women and blacks, and now for homosexuals and atheist), people which don't tolerate the intolerant. And I did explain this, but you ignored it:
"Like you said, there can never be a perfect balance due to the nature of humans, there will always be intolerant people, it's just that some people who are intolerant have all the rights to be so, and others have no rights at all."
and instead went on again about your neutral stance and your views... BTW Good and evil may be subjective to the believe of each person, but in a society, the similarities between them are very strong, so there aren't many differences. So if the majority finds something evil and can prove that it's evil, then it is evil, and if the minority thinks it's good but can't prove why it's good (racism, misogyny, slavery, discrimination in general), then of course they are a problem to society if they don't adapt, and NO I DON'T WANT TO BE SHOT, I WANT THEM TO BE EDUCATED, to be directly criticized (so they get it and do some reflection), as I explained before..... I don't even know what to say, your argument is that pointless...
You see, your whole argument, and your way of arguing is very flawed, and ironically, hypocritical. It's not that smart as you may think. So please don't believe you've won this argument, it's just that I didn't have time to reply, which now I had.
PS: A neutral stance is the most cowardly thing ever (in cases like this and in your case it's amusingly pointless), believe me I already understand my side and the side of the people I criticize, I'm not talking out of my ass, so I don't need a "neutral" guy explaining to me what and who I argue against...
π: 0 β©: 1
And now you continue on the subject of good and evil...pity it is therefore subjective to the mind of each person.
Actually, the most cowardly stance would have been not to say anything at all. A neutral stance allows for a balanced viewpoint, so that my real alignment can decide on a good course of action based on the actually reasoning presented.
Now, if you really must know, I am actually on your side. I do agree with your argument in many cases. I was staying neutral to avoid this mini-flame war you decided to drag me into. Thanks. Great work, nice job breaking it hero.
Finally, if you didn't, and I quote 'need a "neutral" guy explaining to me what and who I argue against...' then why bother continue at all? The same of which for my argument. You would need to go to such great lengths to disprove an argument so 'very flawed'.
And as I have said, this thread is getting very boring very fast, for both of us I daresay, and I couldn't be bothered to continue.
π: 0 β©: 1
Well now, wasn't I the one who abandoned the argument? So I really didn't 'need a "neutral" guy explaining to me what and who I argue against...', that's why I left, but then coming back to this page to reply to someone else, I saw you considering our argument won by you, so I decided to let you know that you actually didn't win anything, and then I went on explaining to you why, and why your arguing is pointless, I repeat why: that quote is all about semantics (failing in content), it has no connection to the reality we live in, it's pointless and dumb in what it suggests. So, "A neutral stance allows for a balanced viewpoint, so that my real alignment can decide on a good course of action based on the actually reasoning presented.", doesn't apply here because the viewpoint you, neutrally of course, bring to the table, is absolute nonsense, and it seems that you fail to see this, or you understand already but can't accept you were wrong, which is very sad, the first step to being intellectual is to be able to accept that you're wrong, that your view is wrong. And besides your first reply, in all the ones that followed you were digressing, ignoring a bunch of my points, being hypocritical and digressing with comments that had nothing to do with the actual argument.
I bother to say all this because I think that you need to chance, you overrate your intelligence and arguing capabilities, and then this happens, you digress and can't accept you were wrong. The viewpoint you neutrally present is useless and nonexistent, or do dumb intolerant people protest because other smart intolerant people don't let them be intolerant (I'm referring particularly to christian fundamentalists who make a lot of fuss about homosexuals and whatnot)? No. So unless that happens, then yes, for them, your quote is accurate, but for the rest, the majority of smart people, it's just semantics, wordplay, with no actual, logical, useful content, suggesting something very dumb: let racists, homophobes etc freely discriminate and take away rights from people.
You CAN'T bring change to the society by being neutral and tolerant of everything, that's just a dream Buddhists and hippies have, you have to be intolerant of some things for them to change, if people haven't been, we would still live in the 20s or worse, in barbaric times.
If you still don't get it, don't bother to reply.
π: 0 β©: 1
No need to be offensive, or are you incapable of arguing with some courtesy? This entire time you have directed various insults about my lack of intelligence. What evidence do you have to prove it? One argument on DA that I'm now paying very little attention to?
And please, stop twisting my words. I said nothing about letting 'racists, homophobes etc freely discriminate and take away rights from people.' At no point did I say it was a good thing. I didn't say it was bad, but then I didn't give a response either way.
Now, let' try this from my 'neutral' standpoint, shall we?
Arguments for tolerance: Aids integration into different societies; expands knowledge of other cultures; allows easier lifestyles for those previously discriminated against; right to protection by the law. (No doubt there are more, but it would take some time to list.)
Arguments for intolerance: Right of speech and right of thought; differences in ideologies of faith, e.g. Evangelicals to name one faction, various other religions have their own puritan everything-else-is-wrong factions.
Now, must I reiterate what I previously said? I agree with your view. I agree that people should at least be tolerant of others, even if they do not accept what they think or believe or look like. But, I look at it from the viewpoint of neither. I do believe in tolerance, but weighing up both sides allows for a few things, the key two:
1) It means that you can see what you're up against. If you know what you're against, you know what to 'fight' for want of a better word.
2) It helps decide on a course of action that will accomplish the goal you seek. The closer you look at something, the more you understand it. The more you understand it, the finer tuned the response can be.
And would you do me the favour of not treating me like your opponent? If you're fighting intolerance, I can support that. As I have said several times before, I already do.
Do not take this as an insult to your intelligence, either. I can quite clearly see (in fact, I have been able to for some time) that you are one of the people who knows full well what they are against and why. There are unfortunately some people who could quite likely take up a banner for a cause and not know what it is they're fighting for. If you're fighting alongside people, after all, who actually know what they're up against, and not just in it for kicks?
Now, I must phrase a similar problem. If you are going to reply, focus on the actual argument, not insulting me. Argue with some respect for me, if you really must call me your opponent.
π: 0 β©: 1
I apologies for being an asshole, it's just that I have a temper when it comes to such discussions, which I'm ashamed of, thanks for keeping your calm...
First of all, I didn't twist your words, they weren't even your words, it was that quote, and I said that this quote suggested letting 'racists, homophobes etc freely discriminate and take away rights from people.'.
'Not very tolerant of the intolerant are we?', it is a
passive and ironic criticism to the people who fought and fight against intolerance for the rights of the oppressed, (which you indirectly called hypocrites, which they basically are but because there's no other way to fight intolerance than by being intolerant of it), as I said, like it or not that's what it suggests, and you treat it as if it were truly a valid viewpoint, that bothers me the most.
I know what you mean, you say that this quote is an advice to people who are intolerant towards other intolerant people without fully understanding the side of their opponent, and that they should first of all understand the opponents side and then argue. I agree, but the quote doesn't suggest that. And anyway, in these cases, (a group of people against another group that does the oppressing because of anachronistic beliefs) the ones that are against the oppressing groups don't really have to understand the opponents side, because it's that obviously wrong. Like I said, good and evil are indeed subjective to the belief of each person, but in a society the sens of what's wrong and what's good doesn't really differ between individuals (you won't find in our society someone who thinks that it's right to put children alive in the foundation of a building so that the gods may keep it safe, or to sacrifice someone for the well-being of the others, or maybe you would but then you would doubt their sanity), so what's good for the majority, and it can be proven to be good, is officially good. The minority however, following primitive ideologies and dogmas, and using their (blind) faith to prove that something is wrong (which isn't prove at all), are mostly uneducated (in a philosophical and intellectual context) and pretty much brain-washed since they were little. It's even worse because they go and try to change the lives of others, following their retarded (the actual meaning of the word) ideologies. So when you witness something like this, it's so obvious that what they're doing is wrong that you don't even have to bother to understand their side, you just have to make them realize that they need to question their ways, that's already enough on the part of the "intolerant" fighting intolerance.
Of course knowing and understanding their believes makes it a lot easier to argue against them, as you said, but only if you really choose to do a campaign like Christopher Hitchens for example, but you can't and shouldn't expect for everyone who criticizes these imbecilic believes to know everything about the opposite side, the simple fact that they're going against the freedom of innocent people who just want the same rights as the rest, on grounds of their own retarded belief, is so obviously wrong that you don't even have to understand their side to freely criticize them. So it's not mandatory for anyone to fully understand christianity (which this deviation makes an allusion to) or some other ideology to know that it's wrong and that they need to change for the well-being of the society.
Please don't make the common mistake that many do of giving privileged respect to the faulty, mostly idiotic ways of life of these intolerant people. If they make trouble in our society on the bases of their belief you shouldn't give that belief any privilege, you shouldn't feel that you have to be reserved, it's just a belief, a way of life, an incompatible mentality with the times we live in, and in the cases of religious people, you could even call it psychosis.
I could go into details of what I mean, but I think there's no reason to.
I hope you understand what I tried to say, and excuse my English, I learned it by myself so it probably was confusing.
π: 0 β©: 1
I think we've both basically said what we wanted to say when it comes to this. So I'm willing to lay the argument itself aside for now.
Keeping calm is something I had to learn. Of course, when people make me angry...then I lose control. It gets harder and harder to make me angry, but a mistake for anyone that does.
Don't worry, I do understand what you're saying (and the english, believe me I know too many who can't speak or type as well in English as you can, so don't worry about it) and why, but it does wind up to how calm you can remain. The more civil and well-being you remain when you do this sort of thing, the better it makes you look. It gives support. Of course, a well-laid argument can achieve similar results, but being both is best.
I recommend you read this: [link]
It will probably give you some insight into my methodology. My brain doesn't make sense sometimes, not even to me.
π: 0 β©: 0
Yes, I understand where you are coming from but I do not agree with you on the stance that its being a bad thing. Being intolerant of intolerance is a good thing, if we weren't black people or woman would probably still have no rights.
But I do see where you are coming from, now do you see where I am coming from?
That is all I want to know!
π: 0 β©: 1
As I have explained before...I'm not saying it is either a good thing or a bad thing. I can see where both sides are coming from.
If I really must reveal my alignment, I do actually agree with you.
π: 0 β©: 1
Thank you!
π: 0 β©: 0
That's a very idiotic argument iterated just for the sake of semantics, by that logic we should let racists kill and burn black people. We all know and understand what this quote is saying, and we agree, only idiots would disagree, and these idiots, if they're pushy, should NOT be tolerated. That's all you have to think about, everything else is just entertaining thought experiments that will never find a place in the real world/society.
It would be fatal to humanity if people would start to tolerate intolerant people, think before you write something that utterly useless in a practical sense, which this argument is all about, practical advice to harmony between humans.
π: 0 β©: 1
And think before you write off a neutral assessment of the situation.
Note that I quoted. That is not my opinion, but my opinion is being kept separate because I am making this point, not taking sides.
You're argument is fatally insecure due to a similar problem. You are once again proposing true communism, a social ideology that cannot be purely due to human nature. As has already been proven, communism and fascism are both ideologies that cannot be practically maintained, and so we will always have this problem of superiority and inferiority complexes.
I can see quite clearly that you want to try and sort out those who are intolerant to some aspect of society. You quite obviously want to make them tolerant, but it that the way to go about it? Think a moment, calling them idiots, basically insulting how the live, isn't really doing you or the cause any favours.
If you want to help promote tolerance, think of a smarter way to do things, and direct your thoughts to that, rather that trying to deny the issues you will face. You can't win a battle without knowing who or what you are fighting.
π: 0 β©: 1
I don't know how you jumped to communism and fascism, you're putting words into my mouth. By not tolerating intolerant people I was not talking about shooting them, I was talking about not shutting up when you witness intolerance and instead criticize it, for example intolerance against atheists and homosexuals.
And no I am not trying to "make" them tolerant, again (as if I wanted to force them) you added a communist/fascist tone to what I didn't even really say. Society could though try to build a decent educational system for ones, because people lacking education (even though they receive it, it's pathetic) are mostly idiots. Their believes are idiotic, so there's no reason to defend them. What's idiotic is idiotic, it's as simple as that. If I called them dumb or handicapped degenerate hillbillies, then yes, I would have insulted them, but if their way of life and mentality is idiotic, which indeed are in our current society, then I can call them idiots, because it's the truth, and it's our duty as citizens to let them know that their belief is idiotic.
I know what I'm "fighting"
I really don't understand why you choose to be neutral when it's so obvious which side is the right side. It seems cowardly and pointless to me. I still stand by what I was saying, the point you presented (I knew it you quoted someone, I can read...) is utterly useless in this discussion, it's just semantics, and I don't see why you even bothered to present it, as neutral as you were. Like you said, there can never be a perfect balance due to the nature of humans, there will always be intolerant people, it's just that some people who are intolerant have all the rights to be so, and others have no rights at all. You may ask who dictates what's right and what's wrong? Well, society, current philosophies of morality and value which are the result of an ongoing process. Those idiots still follow the philosophies of the past (religious dogma and other customs), hence the term anachronistic, that's why I said that these idiots need a decent education about up-to-date morality, freedom, value etc. not just history, sports, science, biology (where evolution is treated as a hypothesis...) etc., you get the picture.
Sorry for the long reply...
π: 0 β©: 2
Thank you wonderful!
I am intolerant of intolerance!
π: 0 β©: 0
I'm not asking for a written monologue of your ideology.
No, it's not utterly useless in this discussion. You can't fight without seeing both sides. "Know thine enemy." It's a pretty obvious phrase. You know what you're fighting, you know what tools your opponent has at their disposal - the quote I used is that first step - you would be fairly imbecilic were you not to take it.
Please, be consistent. When did I start defending them? You wouldn't need to mention it unless it formed a point in your argument, and it's invalid. I'm not defending them - I'm taking a neutral stance, which you also showed. I took this neutral position because I follow my own beliefs, I don't strive to convince or protect others, it's pointless.
Ah yes, you can also stop with the hypocracy. I have not put words in your mouth, so do not reciprocate the gesture. I used communism and capitalism to make a point - they are examples, not tu quoque. I didn't ask who dictates right and wrong - I have never believed that there is such a thing. There is opinion and belief, faction and opposition. Good and evil are subjective to the beliefs of each person.
Meh, long replies allow for more information.
π: 0 β©: 1
Don't worry, I'm not defending any opposition or anything. I'm merely putting things across from my viewpoint.
If you really want to help create a more tolerant society I would recommend a more subtle approach than the way you have thus far, however.
π: 0 β©: 1
I understand.
π: 0 β©: 0
Why should we be tolerant of hate and prejudice??
π: 0 β©: 1
I didn't say we should be. If you read my comment carefully, I don't actually voice an opinion either way. I'm staying neutral here, just warning you that this is unfortunately a topic that has a limited approach.
Think about it, if you approach someone and say 'be tolerant of race and religion, you ass' that's being intolerant of their way of life.
I take it you are trying to convince people to be more tolerant of those who believe differently to them, no?
If you intend to make headway, a blunt frontal assault is not the way to go about it.
π: 0 β©: 3
If you didn't say we should be, why are you still arguing the point in the first place? I can understand just saying that you didn't mean it that way, but really, if you don't believe it then drop it.
π: 0 β©: 1
Actually, I wasn't arguing any more.
I had forgotten about this reply until you saw fit to remind me.
Now, can we just bury the hatchet? I'm working and you're interrupting.
π: 0 β©: 0
I understand now, and ignore my other comment asking you about where they Hypocrisy is!
π: 0 β©: 1
Oh, sorry. Already replied to it when I saw this.
π: 0 β©: 0
Okay, let's put it this way... I am okay if you don't like black people I am NOT going to tell you to like them, however if you threaten them, and tell them to die or kill them...then you and I will have issues and I will NOT be tolerant of that!
Does that make sense?
And a "blunt frontal assault" is sometimes the best way to go, cause often the people who say do intolerant things, are ignorant, rude, and disrespectful!
However in some cases yes, peaceful is okay!
π: 0 β©: 1
To be frank, I do agree with you. I have fairly strict anti-racist ideas, and other various things. A neutral position allows you to view things analytically, however.
The best way to persuade people something is to do it in such a way that it does not seem like they are changing their way of life. Making a shift in mental thinking is difficult. Changing what you do in life is easier both if you don't know you're doing it, as if you are living life of your own accord.
π: 0 β©: 1
Oh yeah. I totally agree if I don't have all information, I am neutral I like to know both sides, and I know both sides to this issue. Hence why I have the one side.
I totally agree...thank you!
π: 0 β©: 0
Good for you!!
π: 0 β©: 0
Not very tolerant of the intolerant are we?
Relax, nothing matters in the end.
π: 0 β©: 1
Can you explain?
π: 0 β©: 1
Be tolerant to the intolerant as far as you can tolerate, in so doing give them a lesson in tolerance, that they'll probably ignore.
Be intolerant to the intolerant and stir them up and they'll just have something else to be intolerant of.
When reacting to someone you label intolerant, it's probably best to consider; is no reply more or less inflammatory.
On the basis that someone who is excitable and prone to 'unreasonable' bias isn't likely to get more reasonable when enraged.
But I replied anyway
Trying to remember that nothing matters is hard if not impossible, but well worth the effort as it lends a sense of perspective that can't be achieved any other way.
π: 0 β©: 1
Ah, I see...well intolerants can cause people to killing themselves ( I.e: being tolerant of bullys, who are intolerant! If you tell them to stop or stick up for that person, you might save the victims life!) But I see where you are coming from~
π: 0 β©: 1
| Next =>