Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Can all bigots please **** off TSR? watch

    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheIr0nDuke)
    I'm also in favour of the death penalty. For that reason and more.

    My apologies, I thought you were one of the multiculturalism endorsing 'every contrary opinion is bigoted' types. Too many on this forum.
    *cough* name of one of these people is that word *cough*
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThatOldGuy)
    All right. I'll play your game - Opinions, by that definition, are all factual acts - That is: You have chosen to believe(Or not believe) in something a particular way and thus what you would call bigotry wouldn't be bigotry, either.
    By that definition, bigotry just wouldn't exist.

    That actually is just as subtle a joke as the original thread... I think. I apologize. I don't know if you're being serious or not because it's the internet, so I suspect you're just playing on modern thinking and pointing out the inherent absurdities.
    But surely an opinion is what someone thinker whereas bigotry isn't what you think it's merely being intolerant of what someone thinks?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Death to the baguettes
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by similarBlank)
    But surely an opinion is what someone thinker whereas bigotry isn't what you think it's merely being intolerant of what someone thinks?

    Okay. I now think that you believe this, so I apologize(Unless you don't really believe it, in which case well played).

    Intolerance is simply the outer-manifestation of a disagreement, and banning 'Intolerance' simply means you've assumed that 'Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law'.

    The simple truth is that we should be intolerant of certain things - If a man is schizophrenic and decides to jump off a building, we -should- interfere with him. If two inner-city gangs and shooting the poop out of each other, we -should- put a stop to it. If a child decides she doesn't want to go to school, we -should- interfere with that.

    On the other hand, if you're suggesting that we should embrace classical liberalism where "The right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins", then that is an argument.

    However: That requires the ability to criticize things, including things the majority(Or minority) would rather not have criticized.

    If your rule is that intolerant thought is fine, but intolerant action are not, then you've actually just outlawed voting unless you vote for a party that promises not to adversely affect anyone ever.
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by similarBlank)
    Let's do it! For democracy and freedom!
    I'm here to stay.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Yes, because this is really going to make bigots leave...:rolleyes:
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    see yah OP
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    IIT 2016 noobs arguing
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathemagicien)
    After you both
    At least Oliver_94 hasn't turned up yet
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by similarBlank)
    I propose that bigotism is not an opinion but the factual act of being intolerant to opinions, thus being intolerant to a factual act isn't being intolerant of an opinion and thus doesn't constitute bigotry.
    Your idea of what constitutes bigoted behaviour is a matter of opinion, pshhhh
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThatOldGuy)
    Okay. I now think that you believe this, so I apologize(Unless you don't really believe it, in which case well played).

    Intolerance is simply the outer-manifestation of a disagreement, and banning 'Intolerance' simply means you've assumed that 'Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law'.

    The simple truth is that we should be intolerant of certain things - If a man is schizophrenic and decides to jump off a building, we -should- interfere with him. If two inner-city gangs and shooting the poop out of each other, we -should- put a stop to it. If a child decides she doesn't want to go to school, we -should- interfere with that.

    On the other hand, if you're suggesting that we should embrace classical liberalism where "The right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins", then that is an argument.

    However: That requires the ability to criticize things, including things the majority(Or minority) would rather not have criticized.

    If your rule is that intolerant thought is fine, but intolerant action are not, then you've actually just outlawed voting unless you vote for a party that promises not to adversely affect anyone ever.
    On the contrary, I'm a libertarian and think people should be able to say and do whatever they like. However, even in a libertarian society it would need to be illegal to, for example, break the law or make baseless accusations.

    I do get the joke but it was partially by accident as I'm simply just suggesting the theory that bigotry is, essentially, making a baseless accusation, which is often against the law but for some reason it seems to be accepted in our society. I guess I put it in a rather abrupt manner, but really I'm just asking why this is?

    An opinion is something that is not defined, it can be anything. Bigotry is something that is defined, it's either yes or no, on or off.

    bigotryˈbɪɡətri/nounnoun: bigotry; plural noun: bigotriesintolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself.

    This is, essentially, a guide to spotting bigotry. Saying someone can say something is bigotry when it's not is, surely, like me going to Wales and saying 'This country is Scotland.' It clearly isn't, no matter how much I say it's Scotland the fact is its Wales. It's like lying; lying is based on what someone does. It is the act of saying something that isn't the truth. It isn't someone's opinion of whether someone is lying or not, it's a fact that they either are or they aren't. It isn't someone's opinion of whether someone is being bigoted or no, it's a fact that they either are or aren't. (Based on the definition of the word.)

    I completely see what your saying and this post isn't really about what I believe (I was rather annoyed at the time I made this post, hence the original tone of the message. ) but I'm just proposing an idea or theory and seeing what people think.

    (Original post by RobML)
    Your idea of what constitutes bigoted behaviour is a matter of opinion, pshhhh
    I don't go by 'my idea' of what constitutes bigotry, as most people do, I go by what bigotry factually, according to the actual definition of the word, is. Explanation above.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources
AtCTs

Ask the Community Team

Got a question about the site content or our moderation? Ask here.

Welcome Lounge

Welcome Lounge

We're a friendly bunch. Post here if you're new to TSR.

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.