Total Posts:131|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Respect for bigots?

rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2016 1:32:46 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
So, Pauline Hanson's been elected to the Senate with 9% of the Queensland vote, or something like that, and she says her support comes from people who are concerned about mosques going up in their communities, and are feeling "swamped by Asians". She may have other policies too for all I know.

Anyway. The mainstream reaction has always been scorn and dismissal because she's an ignorant bigot. But lately I've been thinking - maybe it shouldn't be? Maybe people shouldn't be shut down, given that they really do have concerns about Islam and Asians? They should have space to voice those concerns? They should be heard?

I'm not suggesting that we should agree with them, but that this "oooh a bigot!!" reaction seems a bit self-satisfied and controlling.

For example, mosques. Of course people should build mosques if they want. Freedom of religion, Muslims are awesome, etc. At the same time, though, surely it's okay for people nearby to have concerns and express them? Just as they would if it was a supermarket being built or any other building?

This is just something I've been thinking lately. If people have spent their lives in homogenous communities, uneasiness about people outside that community is to be expected. They're not all necessarily evil. 9% of Queensland is a lot of people.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2016 3:30:24 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/4/2016 1:32:46 PM, rross wrote:
So, Pauline Hanson's been elected to the Senate with 9% of the Queensland vote, or something like that, and she says her support comes from people who are concerned about mosques going up in their communities, and are feeling "swamped by Asians". She may have other policies too for all I know.

Anyway. The mainstream reaction has always been scorn and dismissal because she's an ignorant bigot. But lately I've been thinking - maybe it shouldn't be? Maybe people shouldn't be shut down, given that they really do have concerns about Islam and Asians? They should have space to voice those concerns? They should be heard?

I'm not suggesting that we should agree with them, but that this "oooh a bigot!!" reaction seems a bit self-satisfied and controlling.

For example, mosques. Of course people should build mosques if they want. Freedom of religion, Muslims are awesome, etc. At the same time, though, surely it's okay for people nearby to have concerns and express them? Just as they would if it was a supermarket being built or any other building?

This is just something I've been thinking lately. If people have spent their lives in homogenous communities, uneasiness about people outside that community is to be expected. They're not all necessarily evil. 9% of Queensland is a lot of people.

I think that "bigots" are simply expressing a viewpoint just like other groups do, and they should be treated fairly by the media.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2016 3:35:16 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
Bigot is a disparaging label, and there's no objective way of determining if someone applies for the label.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2016 3:42:59 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/4/2016 3:35:16 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Bigot is a disparaging label, and there's no objective way of determining if someone applies for the label.

What would be a better word to describe the concept?
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2016 4:27:22 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/4/2016 3:42:59 PM, rross wrote:
At 7/4/2016 3:35:16 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Bigot is a disparaging label, and there's no objective way of determining if someone applies for the label.

What would be a better word to describe the concept?

There is no better word. Calling someone a bigot is akin to accusing them of being a pedophile.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2016 4:39:24 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/4/2016 4:27:22 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 7/4/2016 3:42:59 PM, rross wrote:
At 7/4/2016 3:35:16 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Bigot is a disparaging label, and there's no objective way of determining if someone applies for the label.

What would be a better word to describe the concept?

There is no better word. Calling someone a bigot is akin to accusing them of being a pedophile.

Xenophobes, maybe.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2016 4:54:36 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/4/2016 4:39:24 PM, rross wrote:
At 7/4/2016 4:27:22 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 7/4/2016 3:42:59 PM, rross wrote:
At 7/4/2016 3:35:16 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Bigot is a disparaging label, and there's no objective way of determining if someone applies for the label.

What would be a better word to describe the concept?

There is no better word. Calling someone a bigot is akin to accusing them of being a pedophile.

Xenophobes, maybe.

Whenever you apply the bigot label to somebody, you're in effect saying "Let's disregard everything that this guy has to say because he's one of those dreaded BIGOTS!"
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2016 4:58:38 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/4/2016 4:54:36 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 7/4/2016 4:39:24 PM, rross wrote:
At 7/4/2016 4:27:22 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 7/4/2016 3:42:59 PM, rross wrote:
At 7/4/2016 3:35:16 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Bigot is a disparaging label, and there's no objective way of determining if someone applies for the label.

What would be a better word to describe the concept?

There is no better word. Calling someone a bigot is akin to accusing them of being a pedophile.

Xenophobes, maybe.

Whenever you apply the bigot label to somebody, you're in effect saying "Let's disregard everything that this guy has to say because he's one of those dreaded BIGOTS!"

Okay. I can see how that would be.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2016 8:55:29 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/4/2016 1:32:46 PM, rross wrote:
So, Pauline Hanson's been elected to the Senate with 9% of the Queensland vote, or something like that, and she says her support comes from people who are concerned about mosques going up in their communities, and are feeling "swamped by Asians". She may have other policies too for all I know.

Anyway. The mainstream reaction has always been scorn and dismissal because she's an ignorant bigot. But lately I've been thinking - maybe it shouldn't be? Maybe people shouldn't be shut down, given that they really do have concerns about Islam and Asians? They should have space to voice those concerns? They should be heard?

I'm not suggesting that we should agree with them, but that this "oooh a bigot!!" reaction seems a bit self-satisfied and controlling.

For example, mosques. Of course people should build mosques if they want. Freedom of religion, Muslims are awesome, etc. At the same time, though, surely it's okay for people nearby to have concerns and express them? Just as they would if it was a supermarket being built or any other building?

This is just something I've been thinking lately. If people have spent their lives in homogenous communities, uneasiness about people outside that community is to be expected. They're not all necessarily evil. 9% of Queensland is a lot of people.

I personally don't get the double standard most bigots have. They are essentially saying "I want to espouse bigoted views without being called a bigot." Maybe a simpler solution is to not be a bigot in the first place if being in that category offends them so much.
AtheistBrony
Posts: 83
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2016 9:10:14 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
Depends on context entirely. But overall I think bigots and more destructive behaviors should be kept out of first world societies. But raising education alone should aid towards fixing that.
They say they want to save people from hell, but I see them trying to save people with hell. They deny science when on a computer. They say the bible is metaphors for some parts and not others, and follow some parts and not others. They believe their culture more than their bible they supposedly follow, and will deny any contradictions of the bible. Then say we are the dishonest ones? Since we don't believe in a deity which is equally as convincing as any other then god made the devil knowingly?
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2016 9:33:23 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/4/2016 8:55:29 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 7/4/2016 1:32:46 PM, rross wrote:
So, Pauline Hanson's been elected to the Senate with 9% of the Queensland vote, or something like that, and she says her support comes from people who are concerned about mosques going up in their communities, and are feeling "swamped by Asians". She may have other policies too for all I know.

Anyway. The mainstream reaction has always been scorn and dismissal because she's an ignorant bigot. But lately I've been thinking - maybe it shouldn't be? Maybe people shouldn't be shut down, given that they really do have concerns about Islam and Asians? They should have space to voice those concerns? They should be heard?

I'm not suggesting that we should agree with them, but that this "oooh a bigot!!" reaction seems a bit self-satisfied and controlling.

For example, mosques. Of course people should build mosques if they want. Freedom of religion, Muslims are awesome, etc. At the same time, though, surely it's okay for people nearby to have concerns and express them? Just as they would if it was a supermarket being built or any other building?

This is just something I've been thinking lately. If people have spent their lives in homogenous communities, uneasiness about people outside that community is to be expected. They're not all necessarily evil. 9% of Queensland is a lot of people.

I personally don't get the double standard most bigots have. They are essentially saying "I want to espouse bigoted views without being called a bigot." Maybe a simpler solution is to not be a bigot in the first place if being in that category offends them so much.

That's not the issue at hand here. The issue is that notable multiculturalist idiots believe that by calling someone a bigot, that becomes the divine word that can trump all arguments, and that simply is not the case. "Bigots", as you call them, are angry at the fact that they cannot express a view that is rational and justifiable but somewhat out of the mainstream without being called a bigot, all the while having the left believe that they won an argument by appealing to this phrase.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2016 9:52:06 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/4/2016 9:33:23 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
That's not the issue at hand here. The issue is that notable multiculturalist idiots believe that by calling someone a bigot, that becomes the divine word that can trump all arguments, and that simply is not the case. "Bigots", as you call them, are angry at the fact that they cannot express a view that is rational and justifiable but somewhat out of the mainstream without being called a bigot, all the while having the left believe that they won an argument by appealing to this phrase.

If you are against multiculturalism, you are a bigot, yes. That's what "bigot" means. It's like a white racist complaining "I want to be able to commit genocide of black people/jews/insert group here, why can't I? And if I do, I get called racist, waah." The argument is self-defeating. What you are doing is unacceptable and words like racism and bigotry are used to describe your actions. To want to perform those actions while calling it something else make no sense and in time, whatever word you use to describe your actions will eventually gain similar connotations to the words bigot or racist.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2016 9:57:42 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/4/2016 4:58:38 PM, rross wrote:
At 7/4/2016 4:54:36 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 7/4/2016 4:39:24 PM, rross wrote:
At 7/4/2016 4:27:22 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 7/4/2016 3:42:59 PM, rross wrote:
At 7/4/2016 3:35:16 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Bigot is a disparaging label, and there's no objective way of determining if someone applies for the label.

What would be a better word to describe the concept?

There is no better word. Calling someone a bigot is akin to accusing them of being a pedophile.

Xenophobes, maybe.

Whenever you apply the bigot label to somebody, you're in effect saying "Let's disregard everything that this guy has to say because he's one of those dreaded BIGOTS!"

Okay. I can see how that would be.

It's sort of like labeling someone a witch or heretic during the great moral panics of history. The word itself is divorced of it's original meaning (ironically, as the way that the word is used is in itself bigoted, going by the actual definition of the word.) It's applied to people who disagree and replaces intelligent argument, usually because the person who uses the word has either been trained to do this by an insular and ideologically homogeneous social group, or because they just lack the intelligence to argue for their principles. Sometimes both. In invokes the same vague sense of nefarious influence from a malevolent underground which characterizes all great ideological purges from the Inquisition to Nazism, Stalinism, the Red Scare, and the Cultural Revolution. In short, it's the sort of behavior that's to be expected of humans at their worst, a tribalistic smear to rally about when we abandon civilized discourse for more limbic modes of thinking.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
someloser
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2016 9:59:53 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/4/2016 9:52:06 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
If you are against multiculturalism, you are a bigot, yes. That's what "bigot" means. It's like a white racist complaining "I want to be able to commit genocide of black people/jews/insert group here, why can't I? And if I do, I get called racist, waah."
TIL opposing multiculturalism is like wanting to commit genocide.
Ego sum qui sum. Deus lo vult.

"America is ungovernable; those who served the revolution have plowed the sea." - Simon Bolivar

"A healthy nation is as unconscious of its nationality as a healthy man of his bones. But if you break a nation's nationality it will think of nothing else but getting it set again." - George Bernard Shaw
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2016 10:01:59 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
Not even going to bother replying to people like someloser and bball. If anyone else wants to hold an intelligent discussion, happy to go into more depth.
someloser
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2016 10:03:16 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/4/2016 4:54:36 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 7/4/2016 4:39:24 PM, rross wrote:
At 7/4/2016 4:27:22 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 7/4/2016 3:42:59 PM, rross wrote:
At 7/4/2016 3:35:16 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Bigot is a disparaging label, and there's no objective way of determining if someone applies for the label.

What would be a better word to describe the concept?

There is no better word. Calling someone a bigot is akin to accusing them of being a pedophile.

Xenophobes, maybe.

Whenever you apply the bigot label to somebody, you're in effect saying "Let's disregard everything that this guy has to say because he's one of those dreaded BIGOTS!"
Lol, pretty much. It's not even rhetoric half the time - just a dog-whistle to signal badthink that must be disregarded.
Ego sum qui sum. Deus lo vult.

"America is ungovernable; those who served the revolution have plowed the sea." - Simon Bolivar

"A healthy nation is as unconscious of its nationality as a healthy man of his bones. But if you break a nation's nationality it will think of nothing else but getting it set again." - George Bernard Shaw
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2016 10:09:03 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/4/2016 4:54:36 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Whenever you apply the bigot label to somebody, you're in effect saying "Let's disregard everything that this guy has to say because he's one of those dreaded BIGOTS!"

Bigoted views are worthy of being discarded by virtue of being bigoted views.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2016 10:12:11 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/4/2016 9:52:06 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 7/4/2016 9:33:23 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
That's not the issue at hand here. The issue is that notable multiculturalist idiots believe that by calling someone a bigot, that becomes the divine word that can trump all arguments, and that simply is not the case. "Bigots", as you call them, are angry at the fact that they cannot express a view that is rational and justifiable but somewhat out of the mainstream without being called a bigot, all the while having the left believe that they won an argument by appealing to this phrase.

If you are against multiculturalism, you are a bigot, yes. That's what "bigot" means. It's like a white racist complaining "I want to be able to commit genocide of black people/jews/insert group here, why can't I? And if I do, I get called racist, waah." The argument is self-defeating. What you are doing is unacceptable and words like racism and bigotry are used to describe your actions. To want to perform those actions while calling it something else make no sense and in time, whatever word you use to describe your actions will eventually gain similar connotations to the words bigot or racist.

By standard definition, a bigot is "a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions."

Let's examine how this term applies to various arguments, and in a somewhat YYW fashion, we can go through and prove why your argument is objectively wrong.

Firstly, those who are opponents of multiculturalism do so on the grounds that these cultures, regardless of their origin, are intolerant of Western ideals, and seeing as we currently reside in the West, we would not like to have a large demographic of individuals who despise Western ideals on a fundamental level. While this may be ascribed as intolerance of these cultural ideals, it is not without its merits. On this account, it can be seen that the intolerance of otherwise far more intolerant cultures is not a form of bigotry, as it's a response to an insertion of culture, not the very opposite. Disdain for the views of other groups of people when it comes to basic views such as freedom of speech, expression, religion, and various other Western constructs cannot be properly encompassed by a simple referral to it by the term "bigot", as the term carries quite a lot of weight and is not a proper response to these arguments.

Secondly, what you just argued is an irrelevant conclusion, as there are wide differences between the belief that non-assimilating cultures coming into Western nations is a bad thing versus wanting to kill groups of people. This difference is so large that any individual, even you, could notice it. However, you purposely do not, and instead try to mis-characterize my argument by referring to "white racists" wanting to kill "blacks/Jews/etc". This is not the case, and it's a play of intellectual dishonesty on your part to cast aside an argument such as mine by drawing such a conclusion. The idea of multiculturalism seems innocuous at first, but when you examine the underpinnings and the social clash that occurs with those who oppose it versus those who support it adamantly, such as yourself, then you can find the true ideas that are being orchestrated.

Thirdly, while I already referred to your cretinous sentence, I will refer to it again in more detail. This statement, from the start, was "It's like a white racist complaining "I want to be able to commit genocide of black people/jews/insert group here, why can't I? And if I do, I get called racist, waah." However, this is not what's being discussed here. Docile and humane individuals expressing their personal viewpoints of their disdain for cultures that they do not feel are capable of intermarrying with Western cultures is not the same, on any level or degree, as a "white racist" wanting to commit mass genocide. What's most idiotic about your assertion is the basic stance of a "white racist", which is somewhat of a double statement, as not only do you claim that only whites can be racist, but you claim that there are only whites that would look to these actions, and that other races are incapable of such beliefs. This, in response to your previous argument, is a racist term in itself, so the term "bigot" ca be applied to YOU. The reason for such is the fact that other races and ethnicities are not biologically incapable of espousing racist ideas, and your statement says otherwise, meaning your argument that only whites are capable of racism happens to be racist in itself. Now, I understand that you did not explicitly state this, but it can be reasonably inferred that this is the view that is being stated.

Fourthly, your second argument is also an irrelevant conclusion, as this is not what was being discussed. I've yet to deny that these terms are inherently not "bigoted", rather than the fact that calling someone a bigot, whether they are or are not, is not a proper argument to defeat their assertion. Racism and bigotry, while they may be an unfavorable view, are not so plainly stated that they can be defeated with a single term, and believing that your argument of calling someone a racist without explaining anything else is somehow a proper justification is both pretentious and cowardly. I didn't state that they shouldn't be called racists/bigots, I stated that calling them such is an addition, rather than a proper counter-argument.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2016 10:23:08 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/4/2016 10:01:59 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
Not even going to bother replying to people like someloser and bball. If anyone else wants to hold an intelligent discussion, happy to go into more depth.

I've been cordial and very open to engaging in discussions with you, as has someloser. Maybe it's your own inability to counter the arguments presented, paired with the inadequacy of the plastering terms such as racist/bigot in any discussion on this site. If you'd like to respond to my argument, I'm more than willing to continue. Rather than making quixotic statements, you could put those 28 years of neural maturity to use by responding to our arguments. Don't you think that's a good idea?
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
someloser
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2016 10:26:37 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/4/2016 10:09:03 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
Bigoted views are worthy of being discarded by virtue of being bigoted views.
Of course, the palpable "irony" is lost on F-16.
Ego sum qui sum. Deus lo vult.

"America is ungovernable; those who served the revolution have plowed the sea." - Simon Bolivar

"A healthy nation is as unconscious of its nationality as a healthy man of his bones. But if you break a nation's nationality it will think of nothing else but getting it set again." - George Bernard Shaw
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2016 10:26:51 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/4/2016 10:09:03 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 7/4/2016 4:54:36 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Whenever you apply the bigot label to somebody, you're in effect saying "Let's disregard everything that this guy has to say because he's one of those dreaded BIGOTS!"

Bigoted views are worthy of being discarded by virtue of being bigoted views.

Without understanding their merits? Do you really think that wanting an end to unbridled immigration from 3rd world nations is simply without its merits, or are you so much of an arrogant fool to somehow believe your arguments are morally superior to the other?
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2016 10:28:01 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/4/2016 10:23:08 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 7/4/2016 10:01:59 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
Not even going to bother replying to people like someloser and bball. If anyone else wants to hold an intelligent discussion, happy to go into more depth.

I've been cordial and very open to engaging in discussions with you, as has someloser. Maybe it's your own inability to counter the arguments presented, paired with the inadequacy of the plastering terms such as racist/bigot in any discussion on this site. If you'd like to respond to my argument, I'm more than willing to continue. Rather than making quixotic statements, you could put those 28 years of neural maturity to use by responding to our arguments. Don't you think that's a good idea?

I'm not your parent. It's not my job to educate you. I come to this site for quality discussions with other members. Lately, that has become less and less. I'm not against teaching stuff to children if they are genuinely interested in learning but this is not a discussion I want to engage in further. I've already told someloser in the past that he's not someone I'm interested in engaging with so I have no idea why he continues responding to my posts.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2016 10:31:03 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/4/2016 10:28:01 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 7/4/2016 10:23:08 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 7/4/2016 10:01:59 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
Not even going to bother replying to people like someloser and bball. If anyone else wants to hold an intelligent discussion, happy to go into more depth.

I've been cordial and very open to engaging in discussions with you, as has someloser. Maybe it's your own inability to counter the arguments presented, paired with the inadequacy of the plastering terms such as racist/bigot in any discussion on this site. If you'd like to respond to my argument, I'm more than willing to continue. Rather than making quixotic statements, you could put those 28 years of neural maturity to use by responding to our arguments. Don't you think that's a good idea?

I'm not your parent. It's not my job to educate you. I come to this site for quality discussions with other members. Lately, that has become less and less. I'm not against teaching stuff to children if they are genuinely interested in learning but this is not a discussion I want to engage in further. I've already told someloser in the past that he's not someone I'm interested in engaging with so I have no idea why he continues responding to my posts.

I understand someloser to be an intelligent members of this site, and open to change in views (he went from a staunch Libertarian to something remotely different). Is this sense of exhaustion when it comes to changing peoples' views coming from an honest inability to continue discussions with these individuals, or a cover up for your inability to respond in a manner that doesn't simply call them bigots without any other counter-argument?
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2016 10:32:40 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/4/2016 10:31:03 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 7/4/2016 10:28:01 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 7/4/2016 10:23:08 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 7/4/2016 10:01:59 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
Not even going to bother replying to people like someloser and bball. If anyone else wants to hold an intelligent discussion, happy to go into more depth.

I've been cordial and very open to engaging in discussions with you, as has someloser. Maybe it's your own inability to counter the arguments presented, paired with the inadequacy of the plastering terms such as racist/bigot in any discussion on this site. If you'd like to respond to my argument, I'm more than willing to continue. Rather than making quixotic statements, you could put those 28 years of neural maturity to use by responding to our arguments. Don't you think that's a good idea?

I'm not your parent. It's not my job to educate you. I come to this site for quality discussions with other members. Lately, that has become less and less. I'm not against teaching stuff to children if they are genuinely interested in learning but this is not a discussion I want to engage in further. I've already told someloser in the past that he's not someone I'm interested in engaging with so I have no idea why he continues responding to my posts.

I understand someloser to be an intelligent members of this site, and open to change in views (he went from a staunch Libertarian to something remotely different). Is this sense of exhaustion when it comes to changing peoples' views coming from an honest inability to continue discussions with these individuals, or a cover up for your inability to respond in a manner that doesn't simply call them bigots without any other counter-argument?

I think we're done here.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2016 10:33:55 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/4/2016 10:32:40 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 7/4/2016 10:31:03 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 7/4/2016 10:28:01 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 7/4/2016 10:23:08 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 7/4/2016 10:01:59 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
Not even going to bother replying to people like someloser and bball. If anyone else wants to hold an intelligent discussion, happy to go into more depth.

I've been cordial and very open to engaging in discussions with you, as has someloser. Maybe it's your own inability to counter the arguments presented, paired with the inadequacy of the plastering terms such as racist/bigot in any discussion on this site. If you'd like to respond to my argument, I'm more than willing to continue. Rather than making quixotic statements, you could put those 28 years of neural maturity to use by responding to our arguments. Don't you think that's a good idea?

I'm not your parent. It's not my job to educate you. I come to this site for quality discussions with other members. Lately, that has become less and less. I'm not against teaching stuff to children if they are genuinely interested in learning but this is not a discussion I want to engage in further. I've already told someloser in the past that he's not someone I'm interested in engaging with so I have no idea why he continues responding to my posts.

I understand someloser to be an intelligent members of this site, and open to change in views (he went from a staunch Libertarian to something remotely different). Is this sense of exhaustion when it comes to changing peoples' views coming from an honest inability to continue discussions with these individuals, or a cover up for your inability to respond in a manner that doesn't simply call them bigots without any other counter-argument?

I think we're done here.

This isn't a rectal exam. You don't just get to scurry out of a discussion by implying exhaustion.

You're a true coward, it seems.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
Semiya
Posts: 405
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2016 12:38:20 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/4/2016 1:32:46 PM, rross wrote:
So, Pauline Hanson's been elected to the Senate with 9% of the Queensland vote, or something like that, and she says her support comes from people who are concerned about mosques going up in their communities, and are feeling "swamped by Asians". She may have other policies too for all I know.

Anyway. The mainstream reaction has always been scorn and dismissal because she's an ignorant bigot. But lately I've been thinking - maybe it shouldn't be? Maybe people shouldn't be shut down, given that they really do have concerns about Islam and Asians? They should have space to voice those concerns? They should be heard?

I'm not suggesting that we should agree with them, but that this "oooh a bigot!!" reaction seems a bit self-satisfied and controlling.

For example, mosques. Of course people should build mosques if they want. Freedom of religion, Muslims are awesome, etc. At the same time, though, surely it's okay for people nearby to have concerns and express them? Just as they would if it was a supermarket being built or any other building?

This is just something I've been thinking lately. If people have spent their lives in homogenous communities, uneasiness about people outside that community is to be expected. They're not all necessarily evil. 9% of Queensland is a lot of people.

It's better to explain to these people why they're wrong and educate them. If you just dismiss them as bigots, they'll just feel marginalized, and that will breed resentment and anger.
Hiu
Posts: 1,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2016 12:56:26 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
I cannot respect a bigot nor will I respect a bigots opinion. I see what falcon is saying. With 7 billion humans on this planet space is getting smaller and smaller and people just need to learn how to live next to each other.
slo1
Posts: 4,349
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2016 4:08:04 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/4/2016 1:32:46 PM, rross wrote:
So, Pauline Hanson's been elected to the Senate with 9% of the Queensland vote, or something like that, and she says her support comes from people who are concerned about mosques going up in their communities, and are feeling "swamped by Asians". She may have other policies too for all I know.

Anyway. The mainstream reaction has always been scorn and dismissal because she's an ignorant bigot. But lately I've been thinking - maybe it shouldn't be? Maybe people shouldn't be shut down, given that they really do have concerns about Islam and Asians? They should have space to voice those concerns? They should be heard?

I'm not suggesting that we should agree with them, but that this "oooh a bigot!!" reaction seems a bit self-satisfied and controlling.

For example, mosques. Of course people should build mosques if they want. Freedom of religion, Muslims are awesome, etc. At the same time, though, surely it's okay for people nearby to have concerns and express them? Just as they would if it was a supermarket being built or any other building?

This is just something I've been thinking lately. If people have spent their lives in homogenous communities, uneasiness about people outside that community is to be expected. They're not all necessarily evil. 9% of Queensland is a lot of people.

What else should we call people who would deny citizens or legal residence of standard rights based upon race, religion, or country of origin?

I thought we solved this level of fear mongering when white neighborhoods tried to keep black out because they felt they would destroy the culture.

I will listen when talking about who we favor or disfavor for immigration, but there is nothing to call a person who would deny individual freedoms based upon a protected class other than a disgraceful bigot.
slo1
Posts: 4,349
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2016 4:09:30 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/5/2016 12:56:26 AM, Hiu wrote:
I cannot respect a bigot nor will I respect a bigots opinion. I see what falcon is saying. With 7 billion humans on this planet space is getting smaller and smaller and people just need to learn how to live next to each other.

Amen. Why are so many fearful of change, including good change?
slo1
Posts: 4,349
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2016 4:11:09 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/5/2016 12:38:20 AM, Semiya wrote:
At 7/4/2016 1:32:46 PM, rross wrote:
So, Pauline Hanson's been elected to the Senate with 9% of the Queensland vote, or something like that, and she says her support comes from people who are concerned about mosques going up in their communities, and are feeling "swamped by Asians". She may have other policies too for all I know.

Anyway. The mainstream reaction has always been scorn and dismissal because she's an ignorant bigot. But lately I've been thinking - maybe it shouldn't be? Maybe people shouldn't be shut down, given that they really do have concerns about Islam and Asians? They should have space to voice those concerns? They should be heard?

I'm not suggesting that we should agree with them, but that this "oooh a bigot!!" reaction seems a bit self-satisfied and controlling.

For example, mosques. Of course people should build mosques if they want. Freedom of religion, Muslims are awesome, etc. At the same time, though, surely it's okay for people nearby to have concerns and express them? Just as they would if it was a supermarket being built or any other building?

This is just something I've been thinking lately. If people have spent their lives in homogenous communities, uneasiness about people outside that community is to be expected. They're not all necessarily evil. 9% of Queensland is a lot of people.

It's better to explain to these people why they're wrong and educate them. If you just dismiss them as bigots, they'll just feel marginalized, and that will breed resentment and anger.

Good then we can fight them in the streets. We don't negotiate principles so they can feel warm and fuzzy.