When Did It Stop Being OK TO Disagree??

[Rampant Rabbit]

8 hours ago, ozimoron said:

The other part of being tolerant is understanding and appreciating what causes offence to others and refraining from engaging in offensive behaviour.

I  find all religion deeply  offensive and taking kids to  church /sunday school or Friday prayer or the  temple child  abuse, religion should be taught  only after 18 years  old, see how  long it lasts then. But my view it seems is  not respected in anyway often regarded as nuts.

Edited September 19, 2021 by Rampant Rabbit

[ozimoron]

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

So you think increasing the population from 3 billion last century to 8 and rising now has made little difference to "demand" now?

Just how would all those extra mouths get fed without land clearing to make more food? As it is IMO the oceans are being "strip mined" for every possible fish, and polluted because people treat the oceans as a sewer and a good place to dump all their garbage.

But it's all the conservatives fault, of course 5555555555555555555.

I never said any of that but it doesn't mean science is responsible. The fact that we understand anything about what is going on is the product of science.

[ozimoron]

18 minutes ago, Rampant Rabbit said:

I  find all religion deeply  offensive and taking kids to  church /sunday school or Friday prayer or the  temple child  abuse, religion should be taught  only after 18 years  old, see how  long it lasts then. But my view it seems is  not respected in anyway often regarded as nuts.

In my country your attitude to religion is regarded as the norm and is unremarkable.

[ozimoron]

7 hours ago, wprime said:

You are a classic example of what I'm referring to with the word 'snowflake'. You consider anyone who doesn't agree with you to be inferior so you close yourself off from learning about other people and surround yourself with like-minded people making you feel this kind of intolerance is normal. It's not beneficial for anyone, particularly yourself, as you close yourself to plenty of really kind and well-minded people just because they don't conform to your views.

You couldn't be further from the truth and what is deeply, deeply offensive is projection - telling others what they think.

 

Your contention that the lawn sign did not demonstrate intention is totally disingenuous. The lawn sign was absolutely intended to whip up anti Chinese sentiment. The is no other reasonable conclusion.

[wprime]

5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I actually disagree with that. I think it's unlikely that people won't be offended by in their opinion offensive sayings. IMO being tolerant is about accepting that other people have different opinions and have a right to say them even if offensive to some. That doesn't cover speech legally wrong such as slander or libel.

Shutting down speech that a certain segment of the population doesn't agree with is going to end badly, IMO.

Yes that's better. People can't control whether they're offended, but they can respect the rights of others to express themselves even if it offends them.

[wprime]

54 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

You couldn't be further from the truth and what is deeply, deeply offensive is projection - telling others what they think.

 

Your contention that the lawn sign did not demonstrate intention is totally disingenuous. The lawn sign was absolutely intended to whip up anti Chinese sentiment. The is no other reasonable conclusion.

So you say it's deeply, deeply offensive to tell others what they think, then go on to say what that lawn sign man thinks.

 

[Kanada]

5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

NO, I think it's an entirely reasonable assumption to make for anyone that pays attention to what is happening in the real world.

If the land is destroyed, as is actually happening by destruction of the tree cover and over exploitation of arable land ( without fertilizer, much land would be barren ) to feed an ever increasing population it would be entirely possible to grow edible seaweed in the oceans, especially if the fish vanish, as is already happening. There is already research into using insects as food, and insects can be bred in massive amounts.

As there is already massive pressure on land to live on ( it's becoming beyond the ability of average people to buy land in western countries ) sea based cities are already being considered.

 

However, keep on making knee jerk responses ( conspiracy theories! ), if it makes you feel good. I am tolerant of other's right to say things I disagree with, short of actual personal insults.

But what you say isnt true!

you just read something called it research and now have an opinion that you will take to the grave with you!

Thats intolerance 

[watgate]

When folks started to be consumed with self-importance and the feeling or notion that their word was gospel and anything to the contrary was sacriligeous  They decided that they were the all knowing OZ and folks must bow down to them and accept their truths and answers with no room for questioning or uncertainty.

[Kanada]

9 minutes ago, watgate said:

When folks started to be consumed with self-importance and the feeling or notion that their word was gospel and anything to the contrary was sacriligeous  They decided that they were the all knowing OZ and folks must bow down to them and accept their truths and answers with no room for questioning or uncertainty.

Agreed….that pretty much sums it up

aaaand I think we’re “all”guilty….certainly different degrees of guilt on this particular subject but guilty to a man!

Who doesn’t want to be seen to be correct on a subject and have their opinions taken seriously…on the other hand on a forum like this one (just as an example) you are almost immediately corrected, told you are wrong and you didn’t do the correct research ie: the research that person did and all by people who don’t have to stand face to face or even attach a picture of themselves to their “nicknames”

Forums are not a place for the weak at heart!

[Kanada]

3 hours ago, Rampant Rabbit said:

I  find all religion deeply  offensive and taking kids to  church /sunday school or Friday prayer or the  temple child  abuse, religion should be taught  only after 18 years  old, see how  long it lasts then. But my view it seems is  not respected in anyway often regarded as nuts.

Rabbit

By your own writings you seem to feel that you are disrespected…corrected…censored and basically “regarded as nuts” but when you write statements as you have above (especially on the subject of religion) you have to know you’re inviting those very sentiments!

 

What’s the deal?

[wprime]

2 hours ago, Kanada said:

Rabbit

By your own writings you seem to feel that you are disrespected…corrected…censored and basically “regarded as nuts” but when you write statements as you have above (especially on the subject of religion) you have to know you’re inviting those very sentiments!

 

What’s the deal?

What do you feel is nuts about it? He's saying he's offended by the indoctrination of children by religious institutions. While I don't find it offensive, I certainly find elements of the religious indoctrination of children to be unethical so his views are perfectly reasonable.

 

(admittedly I haven't read the full context, I'm just basing this on what you quoted).

Edited September 20, 2021 by wprime

[Kanada]

6 hours ago, Kanada said:

But what you say isnt true!

you just read something called it research and now have an opinion that you will take to the grave with you!

Thats intolerance 

 

2 hours ago, wprime said:

What do you feel is nuts about it? He's saying he's offended by the indoctrination of children by religious institutions. While I don't find it offensive, I certainly find elements of the religious indoctrination of children to be unethical so his views are perfectly reasonable.

 

(admittedly I haven't read the full context, I'm just basing this on what you quoted).

Wasn’t commenting on his subject matter at all…as a matter of fact he makes some sense 

I was asking him why he feels the way he does ie:

by his own words he feels….”disrespected…corrected…censored and basically regarded as nuts” 

[watgate]

Agreed….that pretty much sums it up

aaaand I think we’re “all”guilty….certainly different degrees of guilt on this particular subject but guilty to a man!

Who doesn’t want to be seen to be correct on a subject and have their opinions taken seriously…on the other hand on a forum like this one (just as an example) you are almost immediately corrected, told you are wrong and you didn’t do the correct research ie: the research that person did and all by people who don’t have to stand face to face or even attach a picture of themselves to their “nicknames”

Forums are not a place for the weak at heart!                                                                                                     Kanada- I totally agree with your above statement. A lot of posters are so quick to jump down your throat and cast all sorts of aspersions when it is contrary to their beliefs or goes against the prevailing  or supposed mainstream opinion.It is kinda like what  is going on in the world whereby if you voice an opinion that goes against the narrative being perpetuated by the  opportunists you are quickly shut down and censored. So much for freedom of speech. A sad commentary on present day society.                                                                                                                                  

[zzaa09]

12 hours ago, ozimoron said:

I never said any of that but it doesn't mean science is responsible. The fact that we understand anything about what is going on is the product of science.

Nature.

Not science.

[ozimoron]

13 hours ago, wprime said:

So you say it's deeply, deeply offensive to tell others what they think, then go on to say what that lawn sign man thinks.

 

I didn't tell him anything.

[ozimoron]

11 hours ago, watgate said:

When folks started to be consumed with self-importance and the feeling or notion that their word was gospel and anything to the contrary was sacriligeous  They decided that they were the all knowing OZ and folks must bow down to them and accept their truths and answers with no room for questioning or uncertainty.

if that's true, isn't the converse also true?

[wprime]

54 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

I didn't tell him anything.

Right so making accusations behind someone's back is okay but discussing them openly with them where they have a chance to defend themselves is deeply, deeply offensive.

 

You still think your rules are universal among the "educated/enlightened"?

 

You've just made up a system of rules to justify your desire to silence opinions you don't agree with.

[StreetCowboy]

58 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

I didn't tell him anything.

Good boy, Spike.

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, wprime said:

Right so making accusations behind someone's back is okay but discussing them openly with them where they have a chance to defend themselves is deeply, deeply offensive.

 

You still think your rules are universal among the "educated/enlightened"?

 

You've just made up a system of rules to justify your desire to silence opinions you don't agree with.

It's impossible for him to be offended by a comment not made to him. You're being obtuse.

[wprime]

11 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

It's impossible for him to be offended by a comment not made to him. You're being obtuse.

Are you seriously suggesting that accusing people behind their backs is okay because they probably won't hear it directly to get offended?

[ozimoron]

3 hours ago, wprime said:

Are you seriously suggesting that accusing people behind their backs is okay because they probably won't hear it directly to get offended?

get real, I'm commenting to a third party about the alleged actions of a person probably years later from another country on a private forum. That's a world away from being in his face in the way that his sign was for his neighbours. Can you not see the difference? I did not racially abuse him from next door like he did to his neighbours. Nor did I use racial hate speech of any kind while his sign was explicitly intended to cause offence to Chinese people in his immediate vicinity. The disagreement is perfectly acceptable. The use of hate speech is not. Your apparent inability to understand this is disingenuous.

Edited September 20, 2021 by ozimoron

[wprime]

7 hours ago, ozimoron said:

get real, I'm commenting to a third party about the alleged actions of a person probably years later from another country on a private forum. That's a world away from being in his face in the way that his sign was for his neighbours. Can you not see the difference? I did not racially abuse him from next door like he did to his neighbours. Nor did I use racial hate speech of any kind while his sign was explicitly intended to cause offence to Chinese people in his immediate vicinity. The disagreement is perfectly acceptable. The use of hate speech is not. Your apparent inability to understand this is disingenuous.

I see the difference, I don't agree with it. Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they're being obtuse or disingenuous. Likewise, just because someone doesn't automatically agree with your baseless accusations about a third party, doesn't mean they're being disingenuous either (you must like that word).

 

As you correctly pointed out earlier, intent is what matters most. The problem is you always assume offensive intent (just like you assume of the lawn guy). This is the reason you seem to take so much offence from people disagreeing with you.

 

 - Just like when you compliment a black lady's intelligence and she interprets that as meaning black people are typically dumb.

 - Or when the lady at the J lounge in Sydney assumes my Thai girlfriend is subservient for giving me a neck rub and tells her, "you don't need to do that you know".

 - Or when you called my Thai friend unsophisticated because she was honest and direct with her friends (rather than gossiping about them behind their backs which you find okay). I know you were just relying on your personal biases and had no intention to be offensive.

 

As I said earlier, people rarely speak with an intention to offend others. Most of the time it's an over-sensitive respondent like yourself who assumes offensive intent. This is why tolerance is about regulating your own responses to feelings of offence by understanding that different people have different standards of what is offensive and that just because you're offended, doesn't mean someone is deliberately trying to offend you.

[ozimoron]

1 hour ago, wprime said:

As you correctly pointed out earlier, intent is what matters most. The problem is you always assume offensive intent (just like you assume of the lawn guy). This is the reason you seem to take so much offence from people disagreeing with you.

I don't take offense at people disagreeing with me. I'm just saying that placing a lawn sign sign blaming an ethnic minority can have no reasonable purpose other than to offend. You can dodge that all you like but that's how it is.

[wprime]

20 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

I don't take offense at people disagreeing with me. I'm just saying that placing a lawn sign sign blaming an ethnic minority can have no reasonable purpose other than to offend. You can dodge that all you like but that's how it is.

His sign was objective, based on available evidence the virus almost certainly originated in China (which is a country, not an 'ethic minority'). So it is both true and of public interest (it's important to know how the virus originated to prevent it from happening in the future and part of knowing that where it originated).

 

People like you that find the truth so offensive are exactly what this thread is about. You stifle open debate under the guise of protecting people then go on to support attacking them behind their backs because it won't offend them then. I know people have said this is a new phenomenon and while the internet has made it more obvious, it's certainly nothing new:

 - In the Western dark ages, people were persecuted because their views on science offended others.

 - In post-colonial America, white people were persecuted for loving black people because this offended others.

 - Just 20 odd years ago in parts of America, women are persecuted for having sex with other women because it offends others.

 

When you proclaim there is a universal set of rules for what is offensive known by the "educated/enlightened", you are agreeing that these people deserve to be persecuted because they did indeed offend others. Thankfully many societies have moved on from the above but they moved on because they allowed open discussion of what is right and wrong rather than just declaring things wrong behind people's backs.

 

In Russia people are still persecuted for being gay, in China people are persecuted for having a non-conformist religion, in Afghanistan people are persecuted for supporting female teachers. Why has Western society moved towards tolerance but these other countries have gone backwards over the past few decades? It's because of the freedom of expression people in Western countries have enjoyed that allowed them to openly debate these issues. Society's progress depends on this open exchange of ideas, even if those ideas might offend.

 

Social norms dynamically change over geographical and chronological contexts, there is no universal set of rules for avoiding causing offence. Once you realise that, you'll learn to be a little more understanding of ideas you disagree with, and a little more understanding that just because someone disagrees with you, doesn't mean they intend to offend you.

 

In any case, we're going in circles, I'm going to leave it at this.

[ozimoron]

43 minutes ago, wprime said:

His sign was objective, based on available evidence the virus almost certainly originated in China (which is a country, not an 'ethic minority'). So it is both true and of public interest (it's important to know how the virus originated to prevent it from happening in the future and part of knowing that where it originated).

It was objective and may have been true. What was the purpose of putting a sign on his front lawn?

[thaibeachlovers]

3 hours ago, wprime said:

Why has Western society moved towards tolerance but these other countries have gone backwards over the past few decades?

Can't say I've noticed much tolerance from other people in my lifetime. The official dogma may have changed, but in the real world I live in if I were to wear a dress in public I would expect a bashing.

 

However, I have noticed that people of a certain mindset on corona are  becoming waaaaay more intolerant of those that don't toe the government line. Even those I'd least expect it from. Before corona it was intolerance against those that didn't kowtow to the official line on PC or climate change.

On this very forum, there was a great deal of intolerance towards those that supported a certain politician.

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, ozimoron said:

It was objective and may have been true. What was the purpose of putting a sign on his front lawn?

Because he wanted to and he could?

[ozimoron]

13 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Because he wanted to and he could?

you got nothing, you're clutching at straws to defend hate speech.

[ozimoron]

19 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

However, I have noticed that people of a certain mindset on corona are  becoming waaaaay more intolerant of those that don't toe the government line. Even those I'd least expect it from.

That's because those who don't vaccinate may kill us or our children and grandparents. If you want to ride a motorcycle without a helmet I don't care. If you want to drive drunk that's a different matter. The sheer idiocy of the antivaxers is breath taking.

[thaibeachlovers]

18 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

you got nothing, you're clutching at straws to defend hate speech.

 

5 hours ago, ozimoron said:

I don't take offense at people disagreeing with me.

I disagree with you.