PDA

View Full Version : Tolerance



ducasi
8th-January-2006, 08:21 PM
In the 10 months I have been on this forum, the one thing that disappoints me most is displays of intolerance. Whether it is concerning religious beliefs, or beliefs in general; cultural differences; or simply matters of taste, such as preference in TV viewing, music likes and dislikes, or preferred dance style.

There are probably more. Oh yeah, spelling, grammar, and writing style – far too many inflamed reactions for what is such a trivial thing.

Intolerance is a cancer in the world and in society. It drives a wedge between individuals and groups where with a bit of tolerance it would be easy to see we have more in common than in difference.

I try to be a "live and let live" sort of guy. That said, I've probably said, written and done things in 2005 that displayed intolerance. In 2006 I resolve to do better, and I encourage other people to do likewise.

Please vote in the poll for tolerance. :flower:

Here are a couple of pages that you might like to read...

UNESCO Declaration of Principles on Tolerance (http://www.unesco.org/tolerance/declaeng.htm)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolerance

Piglet
8th-January-2006, 10:47 PM
I try to be a "live and let live" sort of guy.
I would have said I was too! But I know that I could do better in some areas of my life. :)

El Salsero Gringo
8th-January-2006, 11:18 PM
I try to be a "live and let live" sort of guy. How can you live with your intolerance of the intolerant? :whistle:

ducasi
9th-January-2006, 12:17 AM
How can you live with your intolerance of the intolerant? :whistle:
I am not intolerant of the intolerant. I try to tolerate them as best I can. :nice:

Barry Shnikov
9th-January-2006, 01:16 AM
I am not intolerant of the intolerant. I try to tolerate them as best I can. :nice:

False dilemma; no suitable answer.

Barry Shnikov
9th-January-2006, 01:38 AM
False dilemma; no suitable answer.

While we're on the subject.

There can be no serious dispute with the assertion that tolerance must be qualified. I won't tolerate the behaviour of someone who thinks its fun to blow smoke into non-smoker's faces, nor of someone who tries to smooth his path with backstabbing and sucking up. I can't tolerate the opinions of someone who believes homosexuals should be locked up, or someone who believes persons of a certain racial origin should be exterminated, or with someone who believes the world is run by 12' shapeshifting alien lizards (step forward, David Icke).

If any of you find those things ought to be tolerated, I'm sure you will say so.

But otherwise, having established that tolerance is conditional, we are only left to argue about where the line is drawn.

pjay
9th-January-2006, 08:23 AM
While we're on the subject.

There can be no serious dispute with the assertion that tolerance must be qualified. I won't tolerate the behaviour of someone who thinks its fun to blow smoke into non-smoker's faces, nor of someone who tries to smooth his path with backstabbing and sucking up. I can't tolerate the opinions of someone who believes homosexuals should be locked up, or someone who believes persons of a certain racial origin should be exterminated, or with someone who believes the world is run by 12' shapeshifting alien lizards (step forward, David Icke).

If any of you find those things ought to be tolerated, I'm sure you will say so.

But otherwise, having established that tolerance is conditional, we are only left to argue about where the line is drawn.

Well spoken.

I would suggest that most people would draw the line at effects on themselves... for example I suspect most people would argue for tolerance of a person who believes in the 12' aliens (although really if they're shapeshifting, in the most generic sense, how do we know they're lizards?), albeit in a fairly condescending way, simply because that belief doesn't have any effects on me. Should that person try to force me, or talk to the point of annoyance about the 12' aliens then we tend to say, well it's ok to be intolerant of that behavior, because it has an effect on me.

Whether or not this is a reasonable boundary to draw is, I think, a very interesting question - can we really separate beliefs and actions? If I believe in the 12' aliens, but never-ever do anything based on that belief, can I really claim to believe it? I know that some people in history have thought that you can separate actions and beliefs, others disagree and say that they cannot be (no I don't have any references for this)... or maybe I should say that people disagree on whether or not we should make the distinction.

ducasi
9th-January-2006, 09:10 AM
Where is the limit on tolerance?

Tolerance needs to be combined with respect. So I will tolerate someone's behaviour so long as they are respectful of others.

Beliefs and opinions cannot and should not be legislated against, though education must be used to challenge people's beliefs when there is the tendency for them to be expressed through intolerance or disrespect.

Again, I recommend reading the UNESCO Declaration of Principles on Tolerance (http://www.unesco.org/tolerance/declaeng.htm).

El Salsero Gringo
9th-January-2006, 10:25 AM
Well spoken.

I would suggest that most people would draw the line at effects on themselves... Not a very good place to draw a line. At least, it doesn't help much. One person might thereby tolerate efforts to exterminate all red-heads since he was blonde; he might argue that it didn't affect him. Another person might argue that he won't tolerate anyone even thinking that the world was run by shape-shifting lizards because knowing that's how other people think affects him by making him so very ANGRY.

Both might reasonable be wrong in their decision about what affects/doesn't affect them. But all your line has done is move the question to "what can I reasonably consider myself affected by?"

Barry Shnikov
9th-January-2006, 10:38 AM
Another person might argue that he won't tolerate anyone even thinking that the world was run by shape-shifting lizards because knowing that's how other people think affects him by making him so very ANGRY.

Who could you be thinking of here?

Dreadful Scathe
9th-January-2006, 10:54 AM
In the 10 months I have been on this forum, the one thing that disappoints me most is displays of intolerance. Whether it is concerning religious beliefs, or beliefs in general; cultural differences; or simply matters of taste, such as preference in TV viewing, music likes and dislikes, or preferred dance style.

I cant say Ive ever noticed any strong intolerence on the forum. Do you have examples ? Even in the many war of words we have had like 'DJs using Laptops' have not been intolerent - expressing your opinion no matter how vociferously, is not necessarily intolerent.

As has been pointed out - you wouldnt tolerate the Holocaust so there must be somewhere you would draw the line. As has also been pointed out, you cant use yourself as a yardstick because what you find tolerable is not going to be the same as everyone else. Simple example : I find it intolerable that Muslim women have little rights of inheritence and are forced to cover up in public by the society they live in (even if they want to its still an intolerable situation to me) but if I was say an MP and I said all this I would be accused of being intolerent of Muslims and probably be sacked.

So the worst piece of intolerence on the Forum so far has got to be this thread, simply because you dont appear to want to tolerate other peoples valid thoughts.

:)

pjay
9th-January-2006, 11:01 AM
Not a very good place to draw a line. At least, it doesn't help much. One person might thereby tolerate efforts to exterminate all red-heads since he was blonde; he might argue that it didn't affect him. Another person might argue that he won't tolerate anyone even thinking that the world was run by shape-shifting lizards because knowing that's how other people think affects him by making him so very ANGRY.

Both might reasonable be wrong in their decision about what affects/doesn't affect them. But all your line has done is move the question to "what can I reasonably consider myself affected by?"


Sorry, maybe I need to clarify a little... I'm not suggesting that this is a good place to draw the line, just that it seems to be the most common place that I see it drawn.

David Bailey
9th-January-2006, 11:07 AM
Another person might argue that he won't tolerate anyone even thinking that the world was run by shape-shifting lizards because knowing that's how other people think affects him by making him so very ANGRY.
To quote from Wikipedia:


In 1999, he published a book entitled The Biggest Secret, in which he wrote that the world had been taken over by a race of reptiles called the Babylonian Brotherhood, and that some prominent people were in fact reptilian humanoids, including George H. W. Bush, the Queen Mother, and Kris Kristofferson.
Hey, it's a working hypothesis, I mean, just look at them...

And Icke then is quoted as saying:

" As a television presenter, I'd been respected. People come up to you in the street and shake your hand and talk to you in a respectful way. And suddenly, overnight, this was transformed into 'Icke's a nutter'. I couldn't walk down any street in Britain without being laughed at. It was a nightmare. My children were devastated because their dad was a figure of ridicule."
Awww... :innocent:

pjay
9th-January-2006, 11:09 AM
I cant say Ive ever noticed any strong intolerence on the forum. Do you have examples ? Even in the many war of words we have had like 'DJs using Laptops' have not been intolerent - expressing your opinion no matter how vociferously, is not necessarily intolerent.

As has been pointed out - you wouldnt tolerate the Holocaust so there must be somewhere you would draw the line. As has also been pointed out, you cant use yourself as a yardstick because what you find tolerable is not going to be the same as everyone else. Simple example : I find it intolerable that Muslim women have little rights of inheritence and are forced to cover up in public by the society they live in (even if they want to its still an intolerable situation to me) but if I was say an MP and I said all this I would be accused of being intolerent of Muslims and probably be sacked.

So the worst piece of intolerence on the Forum so far has got to be this thread, simply because you dont appear to want to tolerate other peoples valid thoughts.

:)

I'm interested to hear what your definition of intolerance is - along with some examples...

If expression of opinion, regardless of vociferousness, is not intolerance, then when does someone exhibit intolerance?

Also I'd note that we do, in Australia at least, legislate against expersion of opinion when it is forceful enough that the hearer of that opinion becomes fearful for their wellbeing (we call this assult). I know that it is the same in America and believe that it is the same in England.

Dreadful Scathe
9th-January-2006, 12:23 PM
I'm interested to hear what your definition of intolerance is - along with some examples...

I thought I just did. Are you suggesting that my definition is different from yours? I would go by the dictionary definition, which for Tolerance is
The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others.

and intolerance is the lack of this capacity or practice..

The examples Ive already stated for this are the holocaust where the beliefs of the Nazis I had no respect for and Muslim bias against women which I also have no respect for. Did you actually read my post?



If expression of opinion, regardless of vociferousness, is not intolerance, then when does someone exhibit intolerance?

Now Im sure you didnt read my post. I said expressing your opinion no matter how vociferously, is not necessarily intolerant. Of course it isnt! 'I like you hair' is hardly intolerent. The reason I made that statement is because I have seen little example of intolerance on this forum, only strongly held opinions that didnt, to me at least, suggest that the writer had no "capacity for recognising or respecting the practice". I didnt say none, but not very much.



I know that it is the same in America and believe that it is the same in England.

I dont know about England but in Scotland even shouting at some one can get you charged with "Breach of the Peace" and I think its also true that shouting at a person to their distress would count as common assault. However, I really dont think that that has anything to do with the opinion itself, rather its the aggressive way its put across. But of course IANAL :)

pjay
9th-January-2006, 01:24 PM
The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others.

That sounds like a fine definition of tolerance - so can I run with a working definition that intolerance is not respecting the beliefs/practices of others.

This still leaves me wondering what intolerance looks like?




The examples Ive already stated for this are the holocaust where the beliefs of the Nazis I had no respect for and Muslim bias against women which I also have no respect for. Did you actually read my post?


It seems to me that these are examples of what you believe should not be tolerated, not examples of what tolerance looks like - from the first example one might think that going to war is an appropriate response to something that should not be tolerated, although I'm really not certain what exactly it is that you actually do to demonstrate your intolerance of Muslim teachings about women? I mean really what use is your intolerance if all you do is let it grow inside of you without it ever coming out - and to that end, even if it comes out in a forum such as this - is that actually useful for anything other than airing an opinion - is this really intolerance, or is it just noisy tolerance?





Now Im sure you didnt read my post. I said expressing your opinion no matter how vociferously, is not necessarily intolerant. Of course it isnt! 'I like you hair' is hardly intolerent. The reason I made that statement is because I have seen little example of intolerance on this forum, only strongly held opinions that didnt, to me at least, suggest that the writer had no "capacity for recognising or respecting the practice". I didnt say none, but not very much.


You're right, I did mis-read that and leave out the necessarily in my head. But all that does is lead me to the same question that I've been asking all along - what does intolerance actually look like - how would I recognise it in a person, and how would I differentiate it from someone expressing their opinion?

Also here you've talked about what does not look like intolerance to you, and as well ianal - but I believe that in a court of law usually the test used by the "finder of fact" i.e. "is this or is this not intolerance" is that of the "reasonable person," not what you or I might think.

LMC
9th-January-2006, 01:33 PM
I like Article 1.4:


1.4 Consistent with respect for human rights, the practice of tolerance does not mean toleration of social injustice or the abandonment or weakening of one's convictions. It means that one is free to adhere to one's own convictions and accepts that others adhere to theirs. It means accepting the fact that human beings, naturally diverse in their appearance, situation, speech, behaviour and values, have the right to live in peace and to be as they are. It also means that one's views are not to be imposed on others.

Because I fully agree with DS that "expressing your opinion no matter how vociferously, is not necessarily intolerant."

Pjay has a point with the "reasonable person" approach though. Too many Germans in the late 1930s obviously thought that the State treatment of Jews was perfectly reasonable :sad: It's very very difficult to be a 'salmon against the stream', and when everyone is shouting something different from you, most people will start to doubt their own opinions and perceptions - it's human nature. Education and freedom of information can go a long way to address those issues.

On a lighter note, only marginally relevant but a classic (and IMO incredibly funny) example of intolerance was obviously considered equally amusing by the Guardian editors, since they've put it as a pick of the day on their website. Check the link to the article within Mohammed Fayed's letter (http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1682054,00.html)... I think Mr Chancellor just picked an unfortunate introduction to his topic, and sincerely hope he won't be crying in his sleep tonight. On a serious note - this is a case in point that people will only see and understand what they want to. Plus I had to drag it into here somehow because I thought it was hilarious!

stewart38
9th-January-2006, 01:47 PM
There are probably more. Oh yeah, spelling, grammar, and writing style – far too many inflamed reactions for what is such a trivial thing.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolerance


You may think its trivial but my teacher thinks for a 5 year old my spelling and grammar is coming along fine like :yeah:

ducasi
9th-January-2006, 01:50 PM
I cant say Ive ever noticed any strong intolerence on the forum. Do you have examples ? Even in the many war of words we have had like 'DJs using Laptops' have not been intolerent - expressing your opinion no matter how vociferously, is not necessarily intolerent. All my examples are in my first post that you quoted part of...

Whether it is concerning religious beliefs, or beliefs in general; cultural differences; or simply matters of taste, such as preference in TV viewing, music likes and dislikes, or preferred dance style.

There are probably more. Oh yeah, spelling, grammar, and writing style – far too many inflamed reactions for what is such a trivial thing. Seen them all recently.

These have not been cases of people stating their opinions, but of belittling others' "beliefs and practices". That's not respect, it's intolerance.

stewart38
9th-January-2006, 02:06 PM
I cant say Ive ever noticed any strong intolerence on the forum. Do you have examples ? Even in the many war of words we have had like 'DJs using Laptops' have not been intolerent - expressing your opinion no matter how vociferously, is not necessarily intolerent.



:)

I think when someone calls you low life (and much worse) in a public debate and follows it up via PM with the following apology

--------------------
PS....Just because i am a teacher does not negate the fact i have my own ideas and opinions. In this case my opinion of you and people like you is one of sheer disgust .....and pity.
---------------------------

I dont see the tolerance sorry just a sad man:mad:

pjay
9th-January-2006, 02:07 PM
I'd like to provide an example of what I think intolerance looks like...



religion is the final fairy story


I would say that this is belittling to the beliefs of the majority of people in the world, who follow a religion and believe their god or gods to be real and true, it seems to me that the statement suggests that people who are members of a religion would perhaps not be able to tell the difference between what happened yesterday and Snow White.

I know that I found the statement offensive.

David Bailey
9th-January-2006, 02:14 PM
These have not been cases of people stating their opinions, but of belittling others' "beliefs and practices". That's not respect, it's intolerance.
I'm definitely intolerant of those who believe in the God Of Bad Grammar.

Seriously, there's so little intolerance on this Forum it's scary sometimes - compared to most discussion groups at least. The very fact that we can discuss politics and religion without major flame-age is impressive.

I too like the UN declaration, quite well-written I thought.

P.S. Guess how I voted? :devil:

Barry Shnikov
9th-January-2006, 02:23 PM
expressing your opinion no matter how vociferously, is not necessarily intolerent.


I would certainly agree.

Barry Shnikov
9th-January-2006, 02:27 PM
Also I'd note that we do, in Australia at least, legislate against expersion of opinion when it is forceful enough that the hearer of that opinion becomes fearful for their wellbeing (we call this assult). I know that it is the same in America and believe that it is the same in England.

We are a common law jurisdiction, like you, and until only about 20 years ago Australia's final court of appeal was the House of Lords.

You'd have to be going some to express an opinion in such a way as to make someone apprehend immediate personal harm! It would certainly be possible, I suppose.

Not, however, where the parties are merely on an internet forum...

Barry Shnikov
9th-January-2006, 02:29 PM
and as well ianal - but I believe that in a court of law usually the test used by the "finder of fact"

First instance I ever came across of a non-lawyer using the term 'finder of fact'!

David Bailey
9th-January-2006, 02:38 PM
On a lighter note, only marginally relevant but a classic (and IMO incredibly funny) example of intolerance was obviously considered equally amusing by the Guardian editors, since they've put it as a pick of the day on their website. Check the link to the article within Mohammed Fayed's letter (http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1682054,00.html)... I think Mr Chancellor just picked an unfortunate introduction to his topic, and sincerely hope he won't be crying in his sleep tonight.

It's great - I love it!

Selected highlights from the letter:

"The Guardian has a fine reputation for scrupulously sticking to the facts"
Really? I thought it had a fine reputations for funny typys.


"Chancellor is an odious creep who has become a disease on the face of the Guardian."
OK, with a bit of adaptation, I'm thinking I've found my new sig :clap:

But the best bet, for me, is:

"You will remember that I helped bring down the last Tory government. And that the Guardian was alone in supporting me. I regarded it then as my patriotic duty to help get rid of politicians that were rotten to the core. And I did so at no small risk to myself. But I never wavered."
Ah, but where to begin?

Some things are beyond satire. But I'm definitely intolerant of Mr Fayed The Totally Sane.

LMC
9th-January-2006, 02:53 PM
P.S. Guess how I voted? :devil:
Well, it's a silly poll, I would have voted that way too (except I've given up voting on polls, remember).

Sorry ducasi, but it's too vague. I have zero tolerance towards people who have a taste for harming children or for using physical violence to achieve their ends.

ducasi
9th-January-2006, 03:13 PM
Sorry ducasi, but it's too vague. I have zero tolerance towards people who have a taste for harming children or for using physical violence to achieve their ends. I use the UN's definition of tolerance. That does not include tolerating violence.

Nor does my poll question: "I vote for tolerance of individual culture, belief and taste."

Barry Shnikov
9th-January-2006, 03:43 PM
OK, tolerance.

I’ve done some soul searching on this. No really, I thought about for the whole of my bus trip home.

In the sense that (I suspect, could not be bothered to read the whole thing) the UN is trying to get at, I would support the need for tolerance.

But don’t forget the declaration is promulgated by an organisation which has to deal with the fall out of Nazi occupation of half the Old World; genocide in central African countries, murder squads in South American countries, ya da ya da ya da.

When the phrase ‘religious intolerance’ is used on, e.g., a current affairs program, they don’t mean (e.g.) two academics having a vigorous, even ill-tempered debate about fine or even gross points of religious beliefs (“That’s you, that is…”:wink: ). They mean (e.g.) people shooting gynaecology nurses because they work in clinics that carry out abortions.

I don’t agree that challenging someone’s dearly held beliefs is ‘intolerance’, though it may sometimes be phrased in a highly assertive fashion. The challengee can always say ‘Don’t care what you say’, or ‘Who the hell are you to challenge me?’ or ‘Let’s discuss this. This is how I see things.’

They can also say ‘Boo hoo. That’s not fair. You’re being horrible and saying nasty things about what I believe.’ And my response to that is, grow up. You can’t help being (white/ginger/short/a rhythmically challenged dancer) so it’s unfair to criticise you on those grounds. On the other hand, if you wish to believe in 6 impossible things before (and/or after) breakfast, at least have the courage of your convictions.

It may well have been me who said ‘Religion is the last fairy story’. I’d be surprised if anyone can prove that religion (at any rate, the Christian/Hebrew/Moslem variety) isn’t exactly analogous to a fairy story. Look at the story of Babel. It’s so clearly a fable to explain how come you can’t always understand people from other countries; why should it be treated any differently from Aesop’s fable about the hare and the tortoise?

David Bailey
9th-January-2006, 04:34 PM
Nor does my poll question: "I vote for tolerance of individual culture, belief and taste."
Yeah, but let's be honest, it's a silly question, it's like posting a poll: "Wife-beating: good or bad thing?", you're not exactly going to learn much about people's opinions.

I'm now really curious as to who the other rebel is, seeing as it's not LMC. :confused:

ducasi
9th-January-2006, 05:56 PM
Yeah, but let's be honest, it's a silly question, it's like posting a poll: "Wife-beating: good or bad thing?", you're not exactly going to learn much about people's opinions. The poll wasn't about getting opinions. It was about making a statement.

El Salsero Gringo
9th-January-2006, 06:02 PM
The poll wasn't about getting opinions. It was about making a statement.I don't think a debate about the wider philosophy of intolerance is going to be very productive; but I do think the Forum is stacked full of intolerant people. Sadly they're not the kind of people to have sufficient introspection for your statement to reach a place where it might do any good.

Swinging bee
9th-January-2006, 06:09 PM
In the 10 months I have been on this forum, the one thing that disappoints me most is displays of intolerance. Whether it is concerning religious beliefs, or beliefs in general; cultural differences; or simply matters of taste, such as preference in TV viewing, music likes and dislikes, or preferred dance style.

There are probably more. Oh yeah, spelling, grammar, and writing style – far too many inflamed reactions for what is such a trivial thing.

Intolerance is a cancer in the world and in society. It drives a wedge between individuals and groups where with a bit of tolerance it would be easy to see we have more in common than in difference.

I try to be a "live and let live" sort of guy. That said, I've probably said, written and done things in 2005 that displayed intolerance. In 2006 I resolve to do better, and I encourage other people to do likewise.

Please vote in the poll for tolerance. :flower:

Here are a couple of pages that you might like to read...

UNESCO Declaration of Principles on Tolerance (http://www.unesco.org/tolerance/declaeng.htm)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolerance


I am losing the will to be apathetic on this one

ducasi
9th-January-2006, 06:11 PM
I don't think a debate about the wider philosophy of intolerance is going to be very productive; but I do think the Forum is stacked full of intolerant people. Sadly they're not the kind of people to have sufficient introspection for your statement to reach a place where it might do any good.
Unfortunately I fear you right. :(

Dreadful Scathe
9th-January-2006, 06:57 PM
I think when someone calls you low life (and much worse) in a public debate and follows it up via PM with the following apology

--------------------
PS....Just because i am a teacher does not negate the fact i have my own ideas and opinions. In this case my opinion of you and people like you is one of sheer disgust .....and pity.
---------------------------

I dont see the tolerance sorry just a sad man:mad:

And I would agree, but I did say I have noticed this much on this forum. I certainly cant recall reading the low life comment directing at you and there is obviously no way Id see a PM. I have certainly seem quite a few posts I would consider intolerant, just very few. Im also comparing this forum to many many others Ive been to where intolerence is rife - try the about.com forums if you went to see reasonable posts countered with abuse and death threats! :(



All my examples are in my first post that you quoted part of...


Whether it is concerning religious beliefs, or beliefs in general; cultural differences; or simply matters of taste, such as preference in TV viewing, music likes and dislikes, or preferred dance style.

I take it thats what you mean? I must admit I wouldnt have said people on here are intolerant of anyone elses opinions on any of these topics. Disagreeing is nowhere near the same thing.

Dreadful Scathe
9th-January-2006, 07:12 PM
I'd like to provide an example of what I think intolerance looks like...


religion is the final fairy story

I disagree. Thats not intolerance, its just opinion. A strong opinion of course. You could make it intolerant by ending it with 'so we should enforce atheism and burn the churches' but nothing is implied by that statement other than the belief of the poster. As it stands this opinion is no worse in my mind day to day comments you get in every newspaper.



I would say that this is belittling to the beliefs of the majority of people in the world, who follow a religion and believe their god or gods to be real and true,

but....Believers will not find that statement true. In fact most probably find it laughable. My political, social, family, computer, soft toy and religious beliefs have been ridiculed in the past but I don't have an issue with other people with differing opinions to my own. Bring it on I say, I reserve the right to disagree. I am quite sure that Barry would, whilst proclaiming religion as ridiculous, never dream of enforcing his beliefs on anyone else.

ducasi
9th-January-2006, 08:25 PM
I am quite sure that Barry would, whilst proclaiming religion as ridiculous, never dream of enforcing his beliefs on anyone else. Tolerance isn't about not forcing your opinions on others, it's about respecting others.

Ridiculing other people's beliefs is not respectful.

If you don't see this, then it's not a big surprise that you haven't seen much intolerance on the forum.

David Bailey
9th-January-2006, 08:38 PM
My ... soft toy ... beliefs have been ridiculed in the past.
Now that's something I'd like to see a link to... :na:

David Bailey
9th-January-2006, 09:09 PM
Tolerance isn't about not forcing your opinions on others, it's about respecting others.
Ummm... - from your Wiki link, tolerance is "not persecuting others" - it goes on to say that:

While people deemed undesirable may be disapproved of, "tolerance" would require that the party or group in question be left undisturbed, physically or otherwise, and that criticism directed toward them be free of inflammatory or inciteful efforts.

So for example, I can say that David Icke is indeed a nutjob. But I would be wrong to suggest that anyone cart him off to the neareast psycho ward immediately.

The UN link says (among other things):
Tolerance is respect, acceptance and appreciation of the rich diversity of our world's cultures, our forms of expression and ways of being human.

For a third definition, I would say that tolerance is respecting other people's rights to have differences, but not necessarily respecting those differences themselves. So I respect David Icke's right to be a nutjob.

Ducasi, assuming you're referring to the exchange I think you're referring to, I think Barry expressed his opinion strongly, but no more than that. And by usenet standards - yes, this is a tolerant discussion group.

ducasi
9th-January-2006, 09:19 PM
Ducasi, assuming you're referring to the exchange I think you're referring to, I think Barry expressed his opinion strongly, but no more than that. And by usenet standards - yes, this is a tolerant discussion group. I'm not thinking of any one example in particular.

I know this forum is a very tolerant discussion group, which is why when I see intolerance within it, it upsets me more than the external flame-fests typical of usenet, of which I'm very familiar.

pjay
9th-January-2006, 09:48 PM
Tolerance isn't about not forcing your opinions on others, it's about respecting others.

Ridiculing other people's beliefs is not respectful.

I would agree with this statement, however it seems to me that for the most part the argument being put forward is that opinion turns into intolerance when my opinion is that "something should be done"

eg... Icke should be dragged off to...

Although, really I'm sure it could be argued that this is just expressing an opinion.

But if we assume this to be the case I'm left with my earlier question about intolerance of Muslim ideas aboout women.... what should be done about it - if it really is something that we should be intolerant of?

pjay
9th-January-2006, 09:57 PM
but....Believers will not find that statement true. In fact most probably find it laughable. My political, social, family, computer, soft toy and religious beliefs have been ridiculed in the past but I don't have an issue with other people with differing opinions to my own. Bring it on I say, I reserve the right to disagree. I am quite sure that Barry would, whilst proclaiming religion as ridiculous, never dream of enforcing his beliefs on anyone else.

I don't think someone has to believe something to be true in order for it to be "disrespectful of their beliefs/actions."

I could say that you are completely incompetent. I doubt you would believe this, but I think that it would be disrespectful to you, and I think also to your employer (who obviously believes that you're competent enough to be paid to do a job) and anyone who cares to ask for your assistance somewhere.

Note that I'm still working with the definition that tolerance is recognising and respecting 'x' of others, including perhaps their opinions?

Barry Shnikov
9th-January-2006, 10:52 PM
I am losing the will to be apathetic on this one

Harsh, man; harsh.:wink:

Barry Shnikov
9th-January-2006, 10:54 PM
I am quite sure that Barry would, whilst proclaiming religion as ridiculous, never dream of enforcing his beliefs on anyone else.

Well, not before I become World Dictator, anyway...

Barry Shnikov
9th-January-2006, 10:57 PM
Tolerance isn't about not forcing your opinions on others, it's about respecting others.

Ridiculing other people's beliefs is not respectful.

If you don't see this, then it's not a big surprise that you haven't seen much intolerance on the forum.

I see the point you are making.

I have a question.

Why do I have to be respectful of other people's 'beliefs'?

Referring again to David Icke, surely I don't have to respect his 'beliefs', just because they are 'beliefs'? And if that is true for his 'beliefs', it follows for everybody else's as well.

Demonstrate that your beliefs are worthy of respect, and I will accord them the respect due to them.

Barry Shnikov
9th-January-2006, 10:58 PM
So for example, I can say that David Icke is indeed a nutjob. But I would be wrong to suggest that anyone cart him off to the neareast psycho ward immediately.


Uh - think you could have used a better example there, Butch. I'd vote for that in a second. Plus make him give all the royalties from his books to charity.

ducasi
9th-January-2006, 11:07 PM
Why do I have to be respectful of other people's 'beliefs'? Because it is a good and proper thing to do. Respect for other people is what makes society possible. Their beliefs are just part of that.

Referring again to David Icke, surely I don't have to respect his 'beliefs', just because they are 'beliefs'? And if that is true for his 'beliefs', it follows for everybody else's as well. In the case of David Icke, I believe that he was (and may still be) suffering from a mental illness. I don't think that people who are sick deserve ridicule.

ducasi
9th-January-2006, 11:11 PM
But if we assume this to be the case I'm left with my earlier question about intolerance of Muslim ideas aboout women.... what should be done about it - if it really is something that we should be intolerant of? I think that question deserves a whole new thread, and I don't fancy having a proper go at answering it, except to say that generally the answer to disrespectful and intolerant behaviour is education. This may simply simply amount to "setting a good example".

Gadget
10th-January-2006, 02:39 AM
Demonstrate that your beliefs are worthy of respect, and I will accord them the respect due to them.
:sigh:
IMHO Tolerance is about removing the divisive nature of "Them and Us" philosophies. Statements/questions like the above actually promote or show an intollerance by reinforcing the "Them and Us".
Or more accuratly that "My" view is the right one and you have to prove that anything else can measure up to it. How have you gained such a strong beleif that yours is right? Schooling by parents? teachers? media? books? others ideas? How did they come to these conclusions?
If you have only been shown one way of being and one area of philosophy from everyone you trust, admire, love and respect - everyone you know follows it and everyone agrees that it's "right", then it must be right.

You place your trust and beleif in this. If you have closed your mind to any other way of thinking or that anyone else may have a different view/opinion and also be "right", then this is the breeding ground for intolerance.

{edit}
BTW I think the only way to remove this is education - by letting people browse the philosophy store and ask questions from those that know about their field. By asking "Why?". And trying to find answers to it. Leting folks know that there is more than one way to look at something.

pjay
10th-January-2006, 02:40 AM
I think that question deserves a whole new thread, and I don't fancy having a proper go at answering it, except to say that generally the answer to disrespectful and intolerant behaviour is education. This may simply simply amount to "setting a good example".

I think that "Education" is often bandied around as the solution to "disrespectful and intolerant behaviour," whether it actually works or not is, I think a whole different issue...

A small ammount from http://www.manager-tools.com/2005/06/culture-two/
Feel free to read the rest of it for how the US Army did manage to get change to happen.



In the 70’s, the US Army was having a terribly difficult time with race relations in Germany. We had forces stationed there, and there were many black soldiers, and significant black-white tensions. While I don’ t know what the experts would/did say regarding the reasons, the fact is, there were many incidents of assault and some homicides relating to race among soldiers. The Army was QUITE concerned, obviously - this was the Cold War, and our forces in Germany played a crucial role in helping Europe feel that Soviet bloc tanks weren’t going to come racing through the Fulda Gap and conquer Europe.

The Army did all sorts of training, helping soldiers learn about each other, and to build bridges, and to address soldiers’ root cause feelings of bigotry and hatred and ignorance. LOTS of classes, awareness sessions, sensitivity work. Lots of Organizational Effectiveness specialists working with unit commanders, trying to communicate a different way of thinking about soldiers who were “different” than they were.

It failed miserably. Race relations did not improve appreciably. Assaults, altercations, homicides, etc. all continued. No decline.


The fact is that I can talk to you until I'm blue in the face, but there is nothing I can do in myself that will cause you to change your beliefs, opinions, level of respect for anyone - or anything like that, only the individual is able to change their beliefs.

What I may be able to do - if I have enough "power" is change the way you act based on your beliefs, or remove you from the situation where I am unhappy with your actions. This has been seen as an effective way to change organisational culture - however that change may come at the expense of an individual (see the entire article referenced above).

bigdjiver
10th-January-2006, 02:47 AM
...Feel free to read the rest of it for how the US Army did manage to get change to happen...I cannot recall who said it, but "If you have them by their b******s, their hearts and minds will follow."

pjay
10th-January-2006, 02:51 AM
If you have only been shown one way of being and one area of philosophy from everyone you trust, admire, love and respect - everyone you know follows it and everyone agrees that it's "right", then it must be right.

Not disagreeing, but would also add to this that choosing to reject one philosophy might be the same.

But the reality is that as people we choose every day what we will and will not believe in, and we base this decision on what we believe is right. I would not live the way I do if I didn't believe that it was right, I would change it to what I do believe is right.

So in my opinion the source of conflict arises because different people have differing opinions at to what is right, and thus different ways of living. When I see someone living based on a belief that I think is wrong I have only a couple of choices available to me:

1. subjective truth.
2. I am right, they are wrong.
3. I am wrong, they are right.

Now of course subjective truth has it's place - one person can love haggis, while another hate it, but in some circumstances societies & beliefs call for absolute truths - as a society we define circumstances in which it is acceptable to kill a human, outside of these circumstances we do not tolerate this behavior - we lock people up for it, in some countries people are even "deprived of life" for it.

Anyhow, I don't think that conflict is a bad thing - however it is something that people tend to do badly - and the more emotion involved the more likely it is that conflict will be done badly.

NB: I'm not suggesting that we try to remove emotion, to do that would be to dehumanise us.

I'm not sure I've really added anything, but I liked writing this anyway :)

Dreadful Scathe
10th-January-2006, 11:26 AM
Tolerance isn't about not forcing your opinions on others, it's about respecting others.

Ridiculing other people's beliefs is not respectful.

If you don't see this, then it's not a big surprise that you haven't seen much intolerance on the forum.

I see your point but any opinion could seem disrespectful without actually being intolerant. I tihnk my general view of intolerance was always 'people who feel they KNOW the facts and do not care to hear arguments'. I agree that that is too tight a definition and respect is in there too. In our Barry example ;) Barry has given justification for his 'fairy story' remark and anyone can argue against this - perhaps none of this is intolerant until such time as Barry is not interested in the replies, at least taken in the context of this forum where people CAN reply. Some clearly do see it as intolerant but is that bad? The definition of 'Forum' must come into it at some point surely?

Intolerance is not 100% bad. I am quite proud to be intolerant of Nazis and I am quite proud that this forum is full of people clever enough to state their thoughts in a mostly logical and coherant way without resorting to insults all the time. You get enough of that elsewhere. More intolerance on the forum please, it always covers the important issues and can even change the minds of people and ultimately the world ;)

Barry Shnikov
10th-January-2006, 11:42 AM
:sigh:
IMHO Tolerance is about removing the divisive nature of "Them and Us" philosophies. Statements/questions like the above actually promote or show an intollerance by reinforcing the "Them and Us".
Or more accuratly that "My" view is the right one and you have to prove that anything else can measure up to it. How have you gained such a strong beleif that yours is right? Schooling by parents? teachers? media? books? others ideas? How did they come to these conclusions?

Sorry, Gadget, but that's nonsense. First, I am simply denying that there is any intrinsic protection from criticism that a belief system should enjoy. Perhaps you could explain to me why I - or anybody else - should respect David Icke's beliefs. And if you can square that one to yourself, maybe I could point to the example of Timothy McVeigh and ask you to explain why I should respect the beliefs held by him and those like him.

If you consider that my assertion that all belief systems is some kind of arrogant assertion that 'I'm right, your wrong' then I haven't communicated my point well enough. I'm simply saying that as far as I am concerned, no person gets protection from me criticising or ridiculing their beliefs simply because they are beliefs, or a faith, or a religion.

This idea, that no one can criticise the religious/quasi religious status quo, led to the slaughter of the Cathars, the Inquisition, Leonardo da Vinci being put under house arrest, and many other crimes. Any proposition that is put forward is subject to criticism; the value of the proposition lies in its ability to withstand the criticism.


If you have only been shown one way of being and one area of philosophy from everyone you trust, admire, love and respect - everyone you know follows it and everyone agrees that it's "right", then it must be right.

You place your trust and beleif in this. If you have closed your mind to any other way of thinking or that anyone else may have a different view/opinion and also be "right", then this is the breeding ground for intolerance.

Second, the only thing I place 'faith and trust' in is what my brain can do. If something seems like nonsense to me, I generally mistrust it. If it seems like solid sense, I generally trust it. The important thing is that I always keep my mind open to new input. In face to face discussions, many people conclude that I am bigoted simply because I've either heard before or anticipated most of the arguments they make so when I provide a counter argument, it's seen as an unreasoning defence of the position I've adopted. Same same in this forum, possibly; however, I can assure you that any time I see an assertion that holds water and which I haven't encountered before it can stop me in my tracks until I've worked out whether I have to change my position or whether I can challenge the new assertion.

The people I generally admire, trust and respect are those people who make sense and conduct themselves well. I would include, recently encountered, Richard Dawkins, Dr. Jonathan Miller, Brian Deer and Lord Justice Neuberger.


BTW I think the only way to remove this is education - by letting people browse the philosophy store and ask questions from those that know about their field. By asking "Why?". And trying to find answers to it. Leting folks know that there is more than one way to look at something.

O dear. My 'Philosophy Store' analogy is gradually slipping away from me. The point was not that there is wide variety on offer, but that there are no assistants there or anything else to give you any idea how the philosphies differ, so that the only way of deciding which one is for you without investigating each one for yourself. Since there are literally hundreds of them, you may find you just pick the nearest one and buy that. In fact a better refinement would be that your one and only visit to the Store is when you are very young and in the company of your parents and they say 'You'll have that one'.

Dreadful Scathe
10th-January-2006, 11:54 AM
I would say that this is belittling to the beliefs of the majority of people in the world, who follow a religion

Just to come back to an earlier point. How do you know a majority of the world is religious ?

This page (http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html) gives a handy pie chart of percentages worlwide but what is this other than a statistic to be taken witha pinch of salt. Britain is not a very religious country, I think the Religion Catagory thread shows a majority of non-religious people from this forum and i would expect a similar pattern to emerge with the rest of the population. What that means is, a lot of people who would label themselves 'Christians' only do so because they were brought up that way, they may be atheists, they may be anti-religion whilst still believing in God. Statistics are not to be believed, if they were you would have to admit that there are thousands of practicing Jedi's all over the world :). The force is with them. Always.

ducasi
10th-January-2006, 02:18 PM
I see your point but any opinion could seem disrespectful without actually being intolerant. It's not the opinion that matters as much as how you express it.

Gadget
10th-January-2006, 02:27 PM
Sorry, Gadget, but that's nonsense. First, I am simply denying that there is any intrinsic protection from criticism that a belief system should enjoy.Can science be seen as a religion? Isn't this what you place your faith in instead of a god? Religion and beleif systems are a mix of social rules and explinations of unexplained "Why"'s. Laws take care of the social rules and science takes care of the why's. So what's the point of religion?


Perhaps you could explain to me why I - or anybody else - should respect David Icke's beliefs. And if you can square that one to yourself, maybe I could point to the example of Timothy McVeigh and ask you to explain why I should respect the beliefs held by him and those like him.Because they are his beliefs. He holds them dear. I would respect his property, I would respect his belongings, why would I not respect his beleifs? Especially as he has opened them up for anyone to look at. I may think that they are rather strange and based on some wonkey logic, but I still respect him for creating his belief system around the facts as he sees them and living true to it.
However, if someone's beliefs encourages the domination over or harm to others, then people will become intollerant to it. Myself included.


I'm simply saying that as far as I am concerned, no person gets protection from me criticising or ridiculing their beliefs simply because they are beliefs, or a faith, or a religion.No-one is asking for protection. What is being asked is why ridicule in the first place?
Ridicule:"Words or actions intended to evoke contemptuous laughter at or feelings toward a person or thing"
Contempt:"The feeling or attitude of regarding someone or something as inferior, base, or worthless; scorn.
- The state of being despised or dishonored; disgrace.
- Open disrespect or willful disobedience of the authority of a court of law or legislative body.

Isn't ridicule so close to intolerance that it makes no odds?


Second, the only thing I place 'faith and trust' in is what my brain can do. If something seems like nonsense to me, I generally mistrust it. If it seems like solid sense, I generally trust it.
But what do you base this 'nonsense' and 'solid sense' on? A while ago, it would be 'nonsense' to think that the world was anything but flat. It would be 'nonsense' to think that the earth was not at the centre of the universe. It would be 'nonsense' to think that there was no god changing the seasons.

What you tend to do is not provide a counter-argument (as climed), but an agresive statement of attack. To be a counter argument, there has to be an argument to defend against in the first place, and stating your personal beliefs is not an argument.

Andy McGregor
10th-January-2006, 02:36 PM
IMHO asking people be tolerant stifles lively debate. It also stifles mindlesss banter. If we are asked to tolerate people being wrong or stating a belief we know to be erroneous, badly thought out, stupid, badly spelt, etc we'd never hear the other side of any argument. And I think we should put forward our side of the argument without some do-gooder asking us to keep silent for the sake of harmony.

Let's use the simple example of spelling. Correct spelling is required for effective communication. And the forum is all about communication. To ask people to communicate better and stop being lazy about spelling is not being intolerant. It's asking people to play the game. To ask us to "tolerate" bad spelling is a valid point of view - it's just wrong :wink:

ducasi
10th-January-2006, 02:54 PM
I'd ask you to tolerant people who have problems with or just can't spell. :)

Tolerance doesn't mean stifled debate. I'm just asking people to state their opinions and make their arguments without trying to ridicule other people's views and beliefs.

Barry Shnikov
10th-January-2006, 03:18 PM
Can science be seen as a religion?
No.

Because they are his beliefs.
So what?

No-one is asking for protection.
Yes they are. They are saying 'You can't say horrible things about his beliefs because they are his beliefs.'

Isn't ridicule so close to intolerance that it makes no odds?
No.

But what do you base this 'nonsense' and 'solid sense' on? A while ago, it would be 'nonsense' to think that the world was anything but flat.
Define 'a while'. It's not been commonly thought that the earth is flat since man first sailed out of sight of land.

It would be 'nonsense' to think that the earth was not at the centre of the universe.
Bad example. The only people who were challenged by that notion were 'the faithful'. The (some) Greeks knew that the earth moved round the sun. For centuries scientists (not that they used the scientific method, but that's another story) tried to find explanations for the otherwise counter-intuitive 'retrograde motion' of the planets. Copernicus/da Vinci's explanation was so logical anyone susceptible to argument and not hide-bound by received wisdom accepted it as overwhelmingly likely.

What you tend to do is not provide a counter-argument (as climed), but an agresive statement of attack.
Actually, if I do the latter I pretty much always do the former as well.

drathzel
10th-January-2006, 03:40 PM
i will be tolerant to anyone elses beliefs and ways of live, however and i know i'll prob get neg rep-ed for this. I also hold the view of "when in rome..." I wouldnt expect to go anywhere else in the world and not conform to the laws and/or traditions for as long as my stay.

Andy McGregor
10th-January-2006, 03:50 PM
I'd ask you to tolerant people who have problems with or just can't spell. :)And I ask you to be tolerant of people who are pedantic about effective communication. There are many ways for people to learn to spell or have their spelling corrected. If you have the intelligence to join in a debate you have the intelligence to find a way to ensure that what you write contains few or no spelling mistakes. We all make the odd typo but some people don't care of think it looks cute - it's this view that I believe we should not tolerate.


Tolerance doesn't mean stifled debate. I'm just asking people to state their opinions and make their arguments without trying to ridicule other people's views and beliefs.What if that belief is patently ridiculous? Are we supposed to enter into sober and sensible debate when someone says clearly and with conviction that the world is run by aliens? :confused: We have no evidence to refute the evidence they present. But it's just silly and deserves a silly response that makes the author look ridiculous just in case there's some bad spellers out there who might believe it:whistle:

..anyway, everyone knows the planet is run by giant owls.

Dreadful Scathe
10th-January-2006, 03:55 PM
..anyway, everyone knows the planet is run by giant owls.

And their police force are pigeons, in every city and place of commerce where people gather in large numbers. There they are. Watching.

Andy McGregor
10th-January-2006, 04:18 PM
And their police force are pigeons, in every city and place of commerce where people gather in large numbers. There they are. Watching.This is the most sensible view on this thread. Even my own opinions pale alongside this genius...

.. somebody's got hold of Mr Scathe's password again.

Barry Shnikov
10th-January-2006, 04:25 PM
Aw shucks. :blush:

I've reached 100 rep points in only 324 posts.

Thanks to the reppers - who know who they are...

(Cue stampede to give me negative rep...)

Dreadful Scathe
10th-January-2006, 04:27 PM
Just to come back to an earlier point. How do you know a majority of the world is religious ?



Just to come back to my earlier point about your earlier point that you havent made a point about yet.

This site (http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_impo.htm) is probably closer to the truth as regards belief and religion. Although the UK census may say that 70% of people state 'Christian' as their religion, only 33% of people say that religion is important to them. So, at the least, this is evidence that suggests our religion poll on this forum is a fairly accurate representation of the general population. (62.79% are atheists and 37.21% are theists)



Or it may just be lots more numbers with a percent sign at the end ;)

David Bailey
10th-January-2006, 09:31 PM
And I ask you to be tolerant of people who are pedantic about effective communication. There are many ways for people to learn to spell or have their spelling corrected. If you have the intelligence to join in a debate you have the intelligence to find a way to ensure that what you write contains few or no spelling mistakes. We all make the odd typo but some people don't care of think it looks cute - it's this view that I believe we should not tolerate.
:innocent:

Other than that, hmmm... sort of :yeah: , but I dunno sometimes. There's a difference between a good point and a well-argued point, and sometimes it appears the latter wins over the former. And sometimes people simply have poor spelling - yes, OK, we should spellcheck everything, but who really has time?

And OK, whilst I am indeed Mr Picky on these points (see ^^ ), I'll try not to let that get in the way of effective communications.


What if that belief is patently ridiculous? Are we supposed to enter into sober and sensible debate when someone says clearly and with conviction that the world is run by aliens? :confused:
Good question. To take an even more extreme case, do we debate with holocaust deniers, who are not just nutty but evil to boot? Yes, we do - because if we don't, their view go unchallenged, and there are always enough useful idiots in the world to ensure they can do damage if someone doesn't point out the flaws in their "arguments".

OK, enough seriousness, about these owls...

And their police force are pigeons, in every city and place of commerce where people gather in large numbers. There they are. Watching.
You've spooked me out now :eek:


however and i know i'll prob get neg rep-ed for this. .
Does anyone ever get neg-repped after saying that?

El Salsero Gringo
10th-January-2006, 09:44 PM
... do we debate with holocaust deniers, who are not just nutty but evil to boot...Do people who are evil know they are evil? Do they just not care? ("Look at me, Mum, I'm evil and I don't care who knows it!") If they know they're evil, why don't they just stop being evil? If they don't know that they're evil, how can you be sure you're not evil too?

pjay
10th-January-2006, 09:54 PM
Just to come back to an earlier point. How do you know a majority of the world is religious ?

This page (http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html) gives a handy pie chart of percentages worlwide but what is this other than a statistic to be taken witha pinch of salt. Britain is not a very religious country, I think the Religion Catagory thread shows a majority of non-religious people from this forum and i would expect a similar pattern to emerge with the rest of the population. What that means is, a lot of people who would label themselves 'Christians' only do so because they were brought up that way, they may be atheists, they may be anti-religion whilst still believing in God. Statistics are not to be believed, if they were you would have to admit that there are thousands of practicing Jedi's all over the world :). The force is with them. Always.

Well, I'd say you've hit on a very important point here... how do we know whether someone is or isn't religious if we can't trust what they say about themselves - if we talk about belief systems, well everyone has one of them, if we talk about traditions - everyone has them, even if they're only "watching desparate housewives every week" - "footy" has been referred to as the state religion for Vic, Australia.

Either way, perhaps I just need to just change my point slightly in saying that I believe the statement is offensive to "the majority of people who follow a religion (if not all of them)."

pjay
10th-January-2006, 10:03 PM
Correct spelling is required for effective communication.

Really? So why is it then that I've seen sooooo many cases of incorrect spelling involved in effective comms?

Regardless of whether it's typos (or should I really say typographical errors) or just poor spelling often we know the meaning anyway, and isn't effective communications all about me understanding what you mean?

Also, as a question, when does something change from being bad spelling to being an alternative spelling? I know it's probably a bad example here but are American's bad spellers because they tend to use a 'z' where the English would use an 's'.

And would I be a bad speller if i was to say that "i believe 'x'" rather than "I believe 'x'"? Or for that matter what about use of punctuation? What about in like smilies - when did they change from being mis-used puntuation symbols into a way of communicating certain feelings, and have you seen any of these in a dictionary such as The Oxford Dictionary yet?

David Bailey
10th-January-2006, 10:12 PM
Do people who are evil know they are evil? Do they just not care? ("Look at me, Mum, I'm evil and I don't care who knows it!") If they know they're evil, why don't they just stop being evil? If they don't know that they're evil, how can you be sure you're not evil too?
Most people don't think of themselves as "evil", true. Or insane, for that matter.

But to me, it seems there clearly are people who, at best, don't care whether they're "evil" or not, they just want the advantages given by taking a particular path, no matter what the consequences. So no, I don't believe they care.

And, to take the example of a proven liar like David Irving (hee, I never get tired of being able to say that in public :) ), he clearly has fame and notoriety, and he clearly is intelligent and stable enough to know what he's doing is wrong - he just doesn't care.

But yes, getting back to the original question, we should always engage in sober debate with these sort of people, because rational debate is the main weapon to defeat them. Or, possibly, satire (http://www.einsatzgruppenarchives.com/revisionism.html) :)

El Salsero Gringo
10th-January-2006, 10:20 PM
And, to take the example of a proven liar like David Irving (hee, I never get tired of being able to say that in public :) ), he clearly has fame and notoriety, and he clearly is intelligent and stable enough to know what he's doing is wrong - he just doesn't care.I don't think he knows what he's doing is wrong. I believe he truly thinks he's on the side of right. I don't think Hitler knew that what he was doing was wrong. Nor Pol Pot, or Stalin. I think some people have a different sense of "right and wrong" from the majority. When that coincides with intelligence, ambition, charisma and a certain amount of luck, we have problems.

These people engage in debate because the earnestly believe that they are right - and that you would be better off if you saw things their way.

David Bailey
10th-January-2006, 10:29 PM
Really? So why is it then that I've seen sooooo many cases of incorrect spelling involved in effective comms?
I'd say, in my (work) professional opinion, that correct spelling is just one of the building blocks for effective written communications. Incorrect spelling (grammar, etc.) won't necessarily render communications ineffective, but they'll certainly make them more difficult. For example, the autocorrect functions in Word, when used correctly, are fantastic helps.

I personally believe that correct structure is as important as correct spelling, for effective communications. But that's just an opinion.


Regardless of whether it's typos (or should I really say typographical errors) or just poor spelling often we know the meaning anyway, and isn't effective communications all about me understanding what you mean?
The point is that if a reader has to pause to decode poor spelling, then that's extra effort for the reader, which diverts effort away from understanding the meaning of the communication.


Also, as a question, when does something change from being bad spelling to being an alternative spelling?
Tricky one, in English - especially because the flippin' language mutates all the time. Look at "on line" -> "on-line" -> "online", for example.


I know it's probably a bad example here but are American's bad spellers because they tend to use a 'z' where the English would use an 's'.
Nope - although if an American were to write for a British audience, it would be professional to use British spelling conventions.

The main key to effective communications is know your audience, and write for them. After that, anything else is secondary.


And would I be a bad speller if i was to say that "i believe 'x'" rather than "I believe 'x'"? Or for that matter what about use of punctuation? What about in like smilies - when did they change from being mis-used puntuation symbols into a way of communicating certain feelings, and have you seen any of these in a dictionary such as The Oxford Dictionary yet?
I'm resisting the temptation to correct your grammar and spelling - see, I'm developing tolerance :innocent:

But to answer your questions, I suggest you research areas such as Usenet etiquette - here's a link to get you started: Hints on writing style for Usenet (http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/writing-style/part1/).

David Bailey
10th-January-2006, 10:34 PM
I don't think he knows what he's doing is wrong. I believe he truly thinks he's on the side of right.
I think he started out OK (or at least, not totally nasty), but he gradually and deliberately moved into areas of denial because he liked the fame and the adulation of far-right groups. But I'm happy to agree to disagree, being tolerant and all.

pjay
10th-January-2006, 10:39 PM
I don't think he knows what he's doing is wrong. I believe he truly thinks he's on the side of right. I don't think Hitler knew that what he was doing was wrong. Nor Pol Pot, or Stalin. I think some people have a different sense of "right and wrong" from the majority. When that coincides with intelligence, ambition, charisma and a certain amount of luck, we have problems.

These people engage in debate because the earnestly believe that they are right - and that you would be better off if you saw things their way.

Dale Carnegie would agree with you - in the first chapter of "How to Win Friends and Influence People" he takes great pains to argue that people consider themselves to be good people and to be right or at the very least believe that their actions are justifiable.

pjay
10th-January-2006, 10:47 PM
I'd say, in my (work) professional opinion, that correct spelling is just one of the building blocks for effective written communications. Incorrect spelling (grammar, etc.) won't necessarily render communications ineffective, but they'll certainly make them more difficult. For example, the autocorrect functions in Word, when used correctly, are fantastic helps.

I personally believe that correct structure is as important as correct spelling, for effective communications. But that's just an opinion.


The point is that if a reader has to pause to decode poor spelling, then that's extra effort for the reader, which diverts effort away from understanding the meaning of the communication.


Tricky one, in English - especially because the flippin' language mutates all the time. Look at "on line" -> "on-line" -> "online", for example.


Nope - although if an American were to write for a British audience, it would be professional to use British spelling conventions.

The main key to effective communications is know your audience, and write for them. After that, anything else is secondary.


I'm resisting the temptation to correct your grammar and spelling - see, I'm developing tolerance :innocent:

But to answer your questions, I suggest you research areas such as Usenet etiquette - here's a link to get you started: Hints on writing style for Usenet (http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/writing-style/part1/).

Actually I happen to agree with you, and wish that I was better at spelling grammar and structure of written language - however I don't wish strongly enough or see it as a big enough problem for me in order to really put the effort in to change myself. So that you for your tolerance.



The point is that if a reader has to pause to decode poor spelling, then that's extra effort for the reader, which diverts effort away from understanding the meaning of the communication.


Could not this pause equally be used to aid in understanding, usually when I see a word that I do not know - be it simply mis-spelt or a new word to me, it usually forces me to re-read the entire sentance in order to understand what is being said. I think that there is a huge difference between effective and fast (actually I find that fast is most commonly ineffective when it comes to communication).



Tricky one, in English - especially because the flippin' language mutates all the time. Look at "on line" -> "on-line" -> "online", for example.


Given that dictionaries are descriptive, and that language is defined by use, this is no surprise to me, and I believe it will continue forever, hence the question of when does something change from being mis-spelt to being an alternative spelling. And also the question about smilies.


The main key to effective communications is know your audience, and write for them. After that, anything else is secondary.

I'd agree with this whole-heartedly. A good friends describes that for good communication to happen "I need to work out what words to use so that you understand what I mean." I think that spelling can be used to assist in this, be it in line with the current norms or not.


I'm resisting the temptation to correct your grammar and spelling - see, I'm developing tolerance :innocent:

I'm sure you know that some of them were intentional in order to support my point :) (but some of them probably weren't).

Barry Shnikov
11th-January-2006, 12:18 AM
The point is that if a reader has to pause to decode poor spelling, then that's extra effort for the reader, which diverts effort away from understanding the meaning of the communication.

I think this is a bigger problem for people who read really quickly. I read very quickly - my sister gave me something my niece had written for school and I read it handed it back to her.
"Well, you could at least read it", she sniffed. I had to work hard to convince her that I had read it from first to last!

When reading quickly, a spelling mistake is like a kerbstone on a railway track - it brings everything to a grinding halt.

I should say my personal policy is not to bother with typos or spelling mistakes unless the result is humorous - like the 'vicious' <-> 'viscous' jollies on another current thread.

I did remonstrate with the person who posted something full of '2's and other SMS abbreviations. It might be acceptable where you are limited to how many characters you have available, but on this forum it just looks like posing....

ducasi
11th-January-2006, 12:44 AM
And I ask you to be tolerant of people who are pedantic about effective communication. There are many ways for people to learn to spell or have their spelling corrected. If you have the intelligence to join in a debate you have the intelligence to find a way to ensure that what you write contains few or no spelling mistakes. We all make the odd typo but some people don't care of think it looks cute - it's this view that I believe we should not tolerate. Am I to tolerate the typo in this paragraph? :whistle:

It has been estimated that up to 20% of the world's population has some form of dyslexia, with around 5% having it to a serious degree. Often that manifests itself in "word blindness" which can make it next to impossible to learn how to spell consistently.

Often a spell-check doesn't help, e.g. when it gives multiple corrections...


Beyond that you get into the more pedantic stuff about "they're", "there" and "their"... It upsets me to see words like this misspelt, but it is part of the natural evolutionary forces acting on our language. As the kids say these days... Deal.


I'd rather read a badly spelt post with questionable grammar which has something interesting to say, than a complaint from someone unable to tolerate the failings of others.

Live and let live... We're not all perfect. :flower:

Andy McGregor
11th-January-2006, 02:25 AM
Am I to tolerate the typo in this paragraph? :whistle:

It has been estimated that up to 20% of the world's population has some form of dyslexia, with around 5% having it to a serious degree. Often that manifests itself in "word blindness" which can make it next to impossible to learn how to spell consistently.

Often a spell-check doesn't help, e.g. when it gives multiple corrections...


Beyond that you get into the more pedantic stuff about "they're", "there" and "their"... It upsets me to see words like this misspelt, but it is part of the natural evolutionary forces acting on our language. As the kids say these days... Deal.


I'd rather read a badly spelt post with questionable grammar which has something interesting to say, than a complaint from someone unable to tolerate the failings of others.

Live and let live... We're not all perfect. :flower:I could claim that the mistake in my previous sentence was deliberate. But it wasn't. It was an error in editing and I'm ashamed of it. I will try harder in future.

However, there are people who post on the forum who make no effort with their spelling and it sometimes leads to ineffectual or ambiguous communication. Correct spelling is correct: incorrect spelling is exactly that.

Of course there are people who are dyslexic and there are people who can't spell. Their communication is flawed. That's why their condition has a name and so much fuss is made about it.

We should be tolerant of people who are dyslexic because they can't help it. We should not be tolerant of people who could spell properly with a bit of effort but have chosen to be lazy. WHICH CATEGORY IS GADGET IN??? :whistle:

Gadget
11th-January-2006, 03:09 AM
WHICH CATEGORY IS GADGET IN??? :whistle:
Poll: Spelling - does it matter on The Forum? (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7429)
It takes me long enough to write some posts... then I need to recognise an error and correct it. :what::tears:

I suppose the obvious answer is post less, on static/stagnant topics, with perfect spelling. But goodness knows who you and Chris would have to target then - just think on the number of folk I am actually helping contribute because they can say "well, at least I'm not as bad as Gadget!" :wink:

"Just doin' ma service to the community mam."

Jive Brummie
11th-January-2006, 06:15 PM
Good thread Duncan:worthy: .

And also a potential powder keg!

Now believe it or not but I can sometimes lack in the tolerance department where other forum members are concerned:whistle: . Sometimes it's an emotional response of which I normally later regret but other times it may be a bit of a wind up and there purely for baiting purposes *sorry*. What does wind me up however with the tolerance thing, and yeah i guess it's a bit of a tenuous link, but, double standards send me insane with rage. Example being, (keeping any names out of it to protect the innocent!) Person A makes a statement on a thread, Person B gets annoyed and responds a bit too harshly and so vents their spleen all over the thread, (that last one is the position I normally take:blush: ) Person A and their hench men deride Person B for their opinion stating everyone's entitled to an opinion...but obviously not you! And then to top it off Person B recieves many...many, PM's in a threatening tone bordering on the violent stating that they are not entitled to their own opinion as far as 'A' is concerned, on nothing more than the position of which they hold within the dance environment, ie. they teach:what:

So basically to clear things up, and if I've got this completely right a teacher is not aloud to disagree with somebody elses opinion but a paying punter can. The final question to all this is should the teacher tolerate this behaviour? Or are they entitled to go bonkers?

J.

Andy McGregor
11th-January-2006, 06:24 PM
So basically to clear things up, and if I've got this completely right a teacher is not allowed to disagree with somebody else's opinion but a paying punter can. The final question to all this is should the teacher tolerate this behavior? Or are they entitled to go bonkers?

J.This is an unnecessary question. All teachers are already bonkers.

Jive Brummie
11th-January-2006, 06:31 PM
This is an unnecessary question. All teachers are already bonkers.

Ahaaaaaaa, nail and head spring to mind.

J.

Dreadful Scathe
11th-January-2006, 06:50 PM
The final question to all this is should the teacher tolerate this behaviour? Or are they entitled to go bonkers?


Going bonkers doesnt get you anywhere though. Nod happily as you would at a small child who for some reason has got hold of a monkey wrench and is too close to your testicles for comfort. Maybe they'll go away if they see you dont care ;) "You cant do that" always escalates the situation ;)

Ouch.

Jive Brummie
11th-January-2006, 06:52 PM
Going bonkers doesnt get you anywhere though. Nod happily as you would at a small child who for some reason has got hold of a monkey wrench and is too close to your testicles for comfort. Maybe they'll go away if they see you dont care ;) "You cant do that" always escalates the situation ;)

Ouch.

With you and your monkey wrench my nuts are tightening...oooooooo:sick:

David Bailey
11th-January-2006, 09:15 PM
Person A and their hench men deride Person B for their opinion
Hench men? There are hench men now? When did they get handed out then? Damn, I knew I'd forgotten something on my Evil Overlord To-Do List... :tears:

Ooh, I'd love to be a hench man, anyone want me? :flower:


So basically to clear things up, and if I've got this completely right a teacher is not aloud to disagree with somebody elses opinion but a paying punter can.
I think, and I could be just being too hench-y here, that you're saying "The customer is always right" is unfair?

People who make money from a business are in a different position to people who pay money to a business; you're a vendor, and they're customers. So yes, their opinion can be treated differently, on some things. That's the nature of the business; any business, in fact.

For example, if ZW and Jon Brett were both to say "Hipsters is the best place in town, bar none", I'd pay more credence to ZW, as there's less chance of a conflict of interest.

Dreadful Scathe
12th-January-2006, 11:49 AM
I think, and I could be just being too hench-y here, that you're saying "The customer is always right" is unfair?

When did he say that? James isnt complaining about the punters having a say, hes complaining that he cant!



So yes, their opinion can be treated differently, on some things.

quite, but James was saying he's been told he's not allowed an opinion and he didnt say it had anything to do with his job. Should 'treated differently' equate to being hit with sticks until you shut up ?



For example, if ZW and Jon Brett were both to say "Hipsters is the best place in town, bar none", I'd pay more credence to ZW, as there's less chance of a conflict of interest.

And shes the only one that looks cute in a black and white hat. Theres evidence :) Vote with the hat. Conflicts of interest are a fact of life, just look at out politicians. If Jon Brett went to visit other venues but ZW didnt, who would you trust then? You either trust someones opinion or you don't. Its just a pity Jon Brett looks so shifty ;)

David Bailey
12th-January-2006, 12:47 PM
When did he say that? James isnt complaining about the punters having a say, hes complaining that he cant!
With great power comes great responsibility. Or so Spiderman tells us.

Actually, I'm not completely sure what James was complaining about, so a bit of clarification would help...


And shes the only one that looks cute in a black and white hat. Theres evidence :)
Works for me.


If Jon Brett went to visit other venues but ZW didnt, who would you trust then? You either trust someones opinion or you don't.
It's not a question of trust, but objectivity. You can't be objective about your own work, or it's much more difficult. Jon's on the stage spinning his tunes, he's not chatting and dancing to loads of different people.

If they both went to the same venue as punters... hmm, I dunno, I think I'd treat their opinions as the same. I might even prefer JB, as ZW sometimes has weird taste in music... :devil:


Its just a pity Jon Brett looks so shifty ;)
Well, yeah - I'm still trying to blot out the memory of seeing him in a Santa suit at St Albans last month, I'll be sending him the therapy bills that's for sure.

Dreadful Scathe
12th-January-2006, 01:35 PM
It's not a question of trust, but objectivity. You can't be objective about your own work, or it's much more difficult. Jon's on the stage spinning his tunes, he's not chatting and dancing to loads of different people.


But he is watching the floor and can see whats happening. It could be argued he would get a better feel for the night as a DJ than a dancer would. Ive been to venues where the music suited me perfectly and I was on the floor non-stop yet I've heard people complain about the same night. As a dancer I'm only a judge of what suited me ;). And, as you say, althougth it may be more difficult to be objective about your own work, everyone trys to be, so it comes back to trust again. Fair enough, if you dont know either Jon or ZW you are probably best to take the opinion of the least biased person there - but thats down to your opinion :).

Jive Brummie
14th-January-2006, 12:15 AM
To just reiterate...James isn't saying anything but purely relaying a situation observed from a distance...

But thankyou for the comments gentlemen:cheers:

j.

LMC
14th-January-2006, 01:39 PM
OK, I wanted to actually think about this one before I responded (yeah, I know, why break the habit of a lifetime, etc.)

As I said up-thread, I think education and freedom of information can go a long way towards addressing intolerance. Self-knowledge is a critical part of this education. Despite the below:


The Army did all sorts of training, helping soldiers learn about each other, and to build bridges, and to address soldiers’ root cause feelings of bigotry and hatred and ignorance. LOTS of classes, awareness sessions, sensitivity work. Lots of Organizational Effectiveness specialists working with unit commanders, trying to communicate a different way of thinking about soldiers who were “different” than they were.

It failed miserably. Race relations did not improve appreciably. Assaults, altercations, homicides, etc. all continued. No decline.
You can lead a horse to water...

In my opinion, the means of delivering the education must in some way have been at fault. You can't overturn the deep-seated prejudices of years in a few encounter group sessions or by telling people that they have to be nice to each other. It strikes me that the Army, in this case, did not get to the root cause of *why* the racists were acting in that way - perhaps they didn't want to be "shocked" by the answers - if you can get somone to articulate - even if it's an "I dunno" - then you can start attacking root causes (Why don't you know? Have you ever thought about it? Why/Why not? etc). Unfortunately this approach takes a lot of time and money and implies you actually care about people, rather than their behaviour. In other words, you are respecting their beliefs, however vile you think they are and however much you have an agenda of changing them.


It's not the opinion that matters as much as how you express it.

Hmm, I think most of us would say this is simplistic because we all have limits of tolerance. But in principle, if the opinion is expressed with respect and leaves someone to continue freely following their beliefs, then "yeah, that".

If several hundred people call me a nutter, then that is bound to have a negative effect (people being what they are - as I said earlier, it can be very difficult to be different). But if only one person calls me a nutter and I'm upset by the way they have expressed themselves, doesn't it indicate some measure of doubt or sensitivity on my part? So I think that it's critical for people to learn/have some self-esteem and self-respect - how can you respect anyone if you don't respect yourself?

Oooh, I think I might have opened a new can of worms...


Most people don't think of themselves as "evil", true. Or insane, for that matter.:whistle: :D

David Bailey
14th-January-2006, 03:36 PM
:whistle: :D
OK, good point. I should have said:

"Most people except LMC don't think of themselves as evil."

Happy? :na:

Tazmanian Devil
14th-January-2006, 04:02 PM
I'm a bit late into thhis thread but hey!! even still


I am not intolerant of the intolerant. I try to tolerate them as best I can. :nice:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: Try and say that one 4 times when your drunk

pjay
14th-January-2006, 11:39 PM
As I said up-thread, I think education and freedom of information can go a long way towards addressing intolerance. Self-knowledge is a critical part of this education. Despite the below:

You can lead a horse to water...

In my opinion, the means of delivering the education must in some way have been at fault. You can't overturn the deep-seated prejudices of years in a few encounter group sessions or by telling people that they have to be nice to each other. It strikes me that the Army, in this case, did not get to the root cause of *why* the racists were acting in that way - perhaps they didn't want to be "shocked" by the answers - if you can get somone to articulate - even if it's an "I dunno" - then you can start attacking root causes (Why don't you know? Have you ever thought about it? Why/Why not? etc). Unfortunately this approach takes a lot of time and money and implies you actually care about people, rather than their behaviour. In other words, you are respecting their beliefs, however vile you think they are and however much you have an agenda of changing them.



Assaults, altercations, homicides, etc. all continued. No decline.

After reading your post, I'm left wondering which people we should "care about" more, those who seem to think that it's acceptable to be commiting such crimes, or those whom they're being committed against?

I don't disagree that education can be a powerful tool in dealing with this sort of thing, but I am not convinced that education is the be all and end all. I think I mentioned this previously that there are two schools of thought - change the mind and the behaviour will follow, and change the behaviour and the mind will follow (yes I would say that sometimes this can change "public" behaviour without having any affect on the mind).

Perhaps one might argue that sometimes education may include forcing people to do something that they don't want to (or stop them doing something that they do want to). I can remember plenty of times that I went to classes at school and university, and plenty of day when I've gone to work, when I didn't want to. I can remember a time when my driver's license didn't let me drive by myself - regardless of the fact that I would have liked to, the point of this being that the law makers didn't believe that I had enough experience and needed more education on the matter.

I do not think that being human is about being "nice" to everyone. I think that as much as possible we should aim to live peacefully (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=12&verse=18&version=31&context=verse), however, sometimes in order to be able to have integrity we need to stand up for what we believe in, we need to perhaps go to war. Yes we may even do this in error - but I'd rather make a mistake than live a life of being "nice" to people who are causing ongoing harm to others. And this does mean that while I may be offended by the actions of some people who believe that my actions are causing ongoing harm, then I would fight for their right to respond with "reasonable force" to me.

If someone is running at you with a knife yelling "I'm going to kill you," I do not think that it is time to suggest "hey, why doing we sit down in a group session and talk about why it is that you want to kill me." I think that it is time to take up arms and defend yourself - if in the process of defending yourself you happen to kill this person, then so be it.

LMC
15th-January-2006, 11:55 AM
Re: pjay's first point, that would be the bleedin' 'eart liberal in me coming out. Fair point, I concede that in an "out of control" situation, more drastic measures than talking about it are required.

Given the severity of the incidents in the Army, then the draconian action taken was justified. But they might as well have done that to start with rather than educate ineffectively.

In an environment with less propensity for violence (let's face it, the Army trains people to kill other people) then effective education has always got to be preferable IMO - not necessarily on its own, but could be in conjunction with "legislation". As pjay says, you can change the behaviour without changing the mindset - in fact, what happens is that you then end up with an undercurrent of resentment which sends the intolerant behaviour "underground" and makes it worse.

Nasty racist behaviour in Britain continues, despite legislation and a general atmosphere of political correctness. Multicultural teaching in schools does not seem to be working. It's interesting that despite a general public and national press attitude that asylum seekers are Evil, there have been some well-publicised battles to keep individuals and families in the UK.

That's why I wanted to make the 'respect' point - on an individual basis, surely it's better to address why they think that way and alter their perceptions.

pjay
15th-January-2006, 12:59 PM
Re: pjay's first point, that would be the bleedin' 'eart liberal in me coming out. Fair point, I concede that in an "out of control" situation, more drastic measures than talking about it are required.

Given the severity of the incidents in the Army, then the draconian action taken was justified. But they might as well have done that to start with rather than educate ineffectively.

In an environment with less propensity for violence (let's face it, the Army trains people to kill other people) then effective education has always got to be preferable IMO - not necessarily on its own, but could be in conjunction with "legislation". As pjay says, you can change the behaviour without changing the mindset - in fact, what happens is that you then end up with an undercurrent of resentment which sends the intolerant behaviour "underground" and makes it worse.

Nasty racist behaviour in Britain continues, despite legislation and a general atmosphere of political correctness. Multicultural teaching in schools does not seem to be working. It's interesting that despite a general public and national press attitude that asylum seekers are Evil, there have been some well-publicised battles to keep individuals and families in the UK.

That's why I wanted to make the 'respect' point - on an individual basis, surely it's better to address why they think that way and alter their perceptions.

In terms of "effective" education, I wonder what that might be. I'd be willing to bet that the Army, and the educators in question probably thought that they could effectively educate the people, and only discovered with hindsight that their efforts were ineffective, so I wonder how one would know an effective educator for the circumstance - I for one don't have a crystal ball.

I would be willing to bet that an effective means of education in terms of "interacting" with others would be to create some kind of circumstance in which you grow to know and respect the person before discovering this point that has been repulsive to you - then you have to make a choice - do I go with the "all <insert group> people are <insert insult>," or do I have to admit that this person whom I care about/relate to/have put effort into is an ok person - even though they fit into a category that I don't like. I think that this can be a first step towards removing the wall.

El Salsero Gringo
15th-January-2006, 01:00 PM
Nasty racist behaviour in Britain continues, despite legislation and a general atmosphere of political correctness. Multicultural teaching in schools does not seem to be working. It's interesting that despite a general public and national press attitude that asylum seekers are Evil, there have been some well-publicised battles to keep individuals and families in the UK.I feel in fairness someone needs to point out that racist attitudes in Britain today differ markedly from some that have been seen in the last hundred years. We don't make people sit on different benches and take different buses because of the colour of their skin. We don't put people in gas chambers because of their race; we don't chop off people's limbs with machetes because they come from a different tribe. These events seem so 'foreign' because Britain has a built-in tolerance, consideration and respect for others that is, sadly, absent in many societies. While we do have some problems - they are of an entirely different order.

pjay
15th-January-2006, 01:06 PM
I feel in fairness someone needs to point out that racist attitudes in Britain today differ markedly from some that have been seen in the last hundred years. We don't make people sit on different benches and take different buses because of the colour of their skin. We don't put people in gas chambers because of their race; we don't chop off people's limbs with machetes because they come from a different tribe. These events seem so 'foreign' because Britain has a built-in tolerance, consideration and respect for others that is, sadly, absent in many societies. While we do have some problems - they are of an entirely different order.

Perhaps it is just a matter of time - moving from "where we were" towards "where we'd like to be." Probably a matter of concerted effort over a period of time...

It seems to me to be pretty common place in societies in history to enslave, marginalise and slaughter those who're different (although in saying that there have also been many instances in the past of societies who care much more for "the stranger" than we tend to today)... Perhaps we're now less likely to be enslaving and marginalising... maybe in the future with effort we can get to a stage where race really is not an issue.

Gadget
15th-January-2006, 11:53 PM
we may get to a stage where colour of skin is not indicative of race, but I doubt that we will get to a stage where race is not an issue. :tears:

Dreadful Scathe
16th-January-2006, 10:39 AM
we may get to a stage where colour of skin is not indicative of race

it already is, it just depends where you are - all the ethnic cleansing in the ex-Yugoslavia were white skinned people - the kurds are the same colour as Saddam, the English are the same colour as the Scottish ;) etc...

Dreadful Scathe
24th-January-2006, 11:27 AM
I feel in fairness someone needs to point out that racist attitudes in Britain today differ markedly from some that have been seen in the last hundred years. We don't make people sit on different benches and take different buses because of the colour of their skin.etc..

we do have immigrants that live in their own areas though, sometimes thats where the housing is, sometimes they choose to, either way it causes serious intergration problems.

LMC
25th-January-2006, 12:02 AM
Most of the problems with that are related to the shortage of housing - refugee, asylum seeker and impoverished immigrants always end up in the worst areas because that's where there's housing available because no-one wants to live there. So they're starting from behind on that front. Then the authorities in their infinite wisdom say "oh, poor things, they need services like a doctor and some specialist teaching and financial advice and childcare so they can work and... and... and..." - conveniently forgetting that people have been living in that area for decades without those services and giving the Daily Mail lovely ammunition for "wicked asylum seekers get massive value services while loyal local community gets nothing". Worst of all, the services are sometimes restricted to the "new" people, when the whole community needs them.

Local media, MP and community action to keep individuals and families from being deported is a testament to "education" - once people understand each other and have a sympathy for each other then they see each other as human beings first and foremost.

Barry Shnikov
31st-January-2006, 06:25 PM
This (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,251-2018709,00.html) is the logical conclusion of deciding that you can't ridicule someone else's religion.

I have drawn a picture of Mohammed:what: , but I've decided not to post it to this site in case Ceroc Edinburgh becomes the object of a fatwa.

Apparently there is no limit to what (some) Moslems will demand in the way of 'respect' to their religion.

(PS the smiley above is not my picture of Mohammed.)

ducasi
31st-January-2006, 06:32 PM
I've decided not to post it to this site in case Ceroc Edinburgh becomes the object of a fatwa. What has "Ceroc Edinburgh" got to do with anything? :wink:

Barry Shnikov
31st-January-2006, 07:51 PM
What has "Ceroc Edinburgh" got to do with anything? :wink:
Most important city in Scotland, isn't it?:whistle:

ducasi
31st-January-2006, 08:10 PM
Most important city in Scotland, isn't it?:whistle:
Least important when it comes to Franck's empire, as that bit is run by someone else! :nice:

Barry Shnikov
31st-January-2006, 08:51 PM
Least important when it comes to Franck's empire, as that bit is run by someone else! :nice:
...sounds like "a quarrel in a far-away country between people of whom we know nothing..."

pjay
31st-January-2006, 10:10 PM
This (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,251-2018709,00.html) is the logical conclusion of deciding that you can't ridicule someone else's religion.

I have drawn a picture of Mohammed:what: , but I've decided not to post it to this site in case Ceroc Edinburgh becomes the object of a fatwa.

Apparently there is no limit to what (some) Moslems will demand in the way of 'respect' to their religion.

(PS the smiley above is not my picture of Mohammed.)

I'm not sure I'd agree that this is the logical conclusion, I don't think that the death threats are due to the ridicule, but due to the image itself - the image would not have to be one intended for humour to have incurred such wrath.

What I love is the "we're not sorry for what we did that caused the offense, but we are sorry that we offended you."

ducasi
1st-February-2006, 01:19 AM
...sounds like "a quarrel in a far-away country between people of whom we know nothing..."
I don't think Franck is planning an invasion of either Poland or Edinburgh... :wink:

Barry Shnikov
1st-February-2006, 02:37 PM
I don't think Franck is planning an invasion of either Poland or Edinburgh... :wink:

Sorry. I do beg your pardon, I was unclear.

The country and people to which I referred were Scotland and the Scotch.


What? What?

ducasi
1st-February-2006, 03:29 PM
the Scotch. Scotch is a drink, favoured by the Scots. :wink:

:cheers:

El Salsero Gringo
1st-February-2006, 03:46 PM
Scotch is a drink, favoured by the Scots. :wink:

:cheers:In Scotchland England, is that?

Say you from Scotchland? Do you know Bob? Bob from Scotchland?

Dreadful Scathe
1st-February-2006, 04:03 PM
Yes, he is my binman - what a small world we live in, you American numpty*



*numpty is slang for "pal" :)

Barry Shnikov
1st-February-2006, 04:42 PM
Scotch is a drink, favoured by the Scots. :wink:


(Writes: ) I must not tease nice Scottish people
I must not tease nice Scottish people
I must not tease nice Scottish people...