By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Should all beliefs be tolerated?

ArnoldRimmer on 19 April 2017
palou said:

What I propose is a disctinction of beliefs that cannot be tolerated

1. One must not sell superiority, through faith or any arbitrary quality among believers (see: caste system.). It must not give the right to judge others because of their beliefs, or instigate excessive fear of the lack of belief, attacking the irrational.

2. One must not oppose the fundamental rights of any human, can not take away their right to free speech, and more importantly, free thought.

3. One must not promise you rights which are not yours according to law.

4. One must be open to debate, questioning. It cannot sell itself as infallible, and must allow, or even encourage the exploration of other ideas, particularly amongst youths. 

If a philosophy/religion/sytem of beliefs fails to fulfill any of the above, I believe it must be adjusted accordingly, and only then tolerated by society.

This would all be to reduce adversity and prevent infectious thoughts that attack our irrationality.

So, what do you think?

I think that this seems like a kind of "manifest of intolerance", written by someone who probably believes himself to be very tolerant.



Around the Network
VGPolyglot on 19 April 2017
KLXVER said:
VGPolyglot said:

There's some problems with that.

1. Not everyone can afford to go to one

2. Some people may be ashamed of their fears, and they may need a little encouragement and help in order to become motivated enough to follow through.

If they cant afford to go to a psychologist, then maybe their hate for the opposite sex or fear of clowns is the least of their problems. They are the ones that think that way. Why should I help them? I can suggest they go get help, but thats pretty much it.

Well, that's one way that hatred for another group is perpetuated in the first place. People are in dire circumstances, and they begin to believe that a certain group is the cause. Just look at the École Polytechnique shooting.



KLXVER on 19 April 2017
VGPolyglot said:
KLXVER said:

If they cant afford to go to a psychologist, then maybe their hate for the opposite sex or fear of clowns is the least of their problems. They are the ones that think that way. Why should I help them? I can suggest they go get help, but thats pretty much it.

Well, that's one way that hatred for another group is perpetuated in the first place. People are in dire circumstances, and they begin to believe that a certain group is the cause. Just look at the École Polytechnique shooting.

There will always be crazy people. We cant go around evaluating every person to make sure they dont have any irrational feelings. Its up to them or their parents to seek help. Im sure someones hate of bananas could get another person killed in some weird circumstance, but should we tell everyone that its not ok to hate bananas? People are responsible for their own actions. Its not up to everyone else to make sure they dont hurt anyone.  



bdbdbd on 19 April 2017
VGPolyglot said:
bdbdbd said:

Well, yes it is, at least from an anarchistic point of view. How would you prevent racism and sexism from not happening? And if we'd live in an anarchy, what difference would it make if someone is racist or sexist?

Racism and sexism are just terms in modern society to describe real or imagined dislike towards certain people. If I dislike someone (or someone dislikes me) because he or she is, or I am, ugly that's supposed to be ok, but if it's based on sex or skin colour, it is not ok for some odd reason, even if the result would be excactly the same. From my point of view, it really doesn't matter why I'm being discriminated.

Wait, are you really trying to argue that racism and sexism are OK? That it's just like disliking an individual?

No. I'm saying discrimination is bad, not the reasons why you are discriminated. I know you think discrimination is ok.

So, how would you prevent racism or sexism from happening in anarchy and what difference would it make?

VGPolyglot said:
KLXVER said:

So what? People are so touchy these days. So a woman calls me a a manpig or whatever...ok, so I call her a bitch and move on with my life.

Whats next, people have to like dogs? Everyone has to like choicolate to not offend the candybar makers?

A dislike of a whole sex is irrational. Women are not some organized collective, they're individual people with individual personalities.

Yes, dislike for the whole sex is irrational. For example the feminists with men-hating hate speech you see everywhere are being irrational, but I think they're entitled to their view. I don't need to like what they think, but they're still entitled to think what they think.



Ei Kiinasti.

Eikä Japanisti.

Vaan pannaan jalalla koreasti.

 

Nintendo games sell only on Nintendo system.

ArchangelMadzz on 19 April 2017
VGPolyglot said:
ArchangelMadzz said:
Believe what you want and practice whatever religion you want as along as you're not breaking any laws no one should have an issue.

Well, in Saudi Arabia the Quran is the constitution.

It is. I fail to see how that would contradict my statement if that's what you're suggesting. 

I have no problem with my neighbour being a Muslim or any religion as long as they're following the law of the land they're in. (Which btw is in the Quran funnily enough)



There's only 2 races: White and 'Political Agenda'
2 Genders: Male and 'Political Agenda'
2 Hairstyles for female characters: Long and 'Political Agenda'
2 Sexualities: Straight and 'Political Agenda'

Around the Network
VGPolyglot on 19 April 2017
bdbdbd said:
VGPolyglot said:

Wait, are you really trying to argue that racism and sexism are OK? That it's just like disliking an individual?

No. I'm saying discrimination is bad, not the reasons why you are discriminated. I know you think discrimination is ok.

So, how would you prevent racism or sexism from happening in anarchy and what difference would it make?

VGPolyglot said:

A dislike of a whole sex is irrational. Women are not some organized collective, they're individual people with individual personalities.

Yes, dislike for the whole sex is irrational. For example the feminists with men-hating hate speech you see everywhere are being irrational, but I think they're entitled to their view. I don't need to like what they think, but they're still entitled to think what they think.

Well, anarchy is not going to work if there's sexism and racism. We need to get rid of that before anarchy can even be successful.



VGPolyglot on 19 April 2017
ArchangelMadzz said:
VGPolyglot said:

Well, in Saudi Arabia the Quran is the constitution.

It is. I fail to see how that would contradict my statement if that's what you're suggesting. 

I have no problem with my neighbour being a Muslim or any religion as long as they're following the law of the land they're in. (Which btw is in the Quran funnily enough)

I was mainly referring to the law part. In all parts of the world, the laws are different, so putting the 4 principles into the laws of each country would be troublesome and difficult.



bdbdbd on 19 April 2017
VGPolyglot said:
bdbdbd said:

No. I'm saying discrimination is bad, not the reasons why you are discriminated. I know you think discrimination is ok.

So, how would you prevent racism or sexism from happening in anarchy and what difference would it make?

Yes, dislike for the whole sex is irrational. For example the feminists with men-hating hate speech you see everywhere are being irrational, but I think they're entitled to their view. I don't need to like what they think, but they're still entitled to think what they think.

Well, anarchy is not going to work if there's sexism and racism. We need to get rid of that before anarchy can even be successful.

And how to do that?



Ei Kiinasti.

Eikä Japanisti.

Vaan pannaan jalalla koreasti.

 

Nintendo games sell only on Nintendo system.

VGPolyglot on 19 April 2017
bdbdbd said:
VGPolyglot said:

Well, anarchy is not going to work if there's sexism and racism. We need to get rid of that before anarchy can even be successful.

And how to do that?

I don't have all the answers. I think a misconception people have here is that I think that communism and anarchy are inevitable. I don't. If I had to predict, I'd say that it'll never happen. However, I try to promote it and support it for just the slightest chance that it could actually be achieved one day.



bdbdbd on 19 April 2017
VGPolyglot said:
bdbdbd said:

And how to do that?

I don't have all the answers. I think a misconception people have here is that I think that communism and anarchy are inevitable. I don't. If I had to predict, I'd say that it'll never happen. However, I try to promote it and support it for just the slightest chance that it could actually be achieved one day.

I actually think it the way that seems way more common: people promote something that they don't think will ever happen, so that you never need to take any responsibility whatsoever about what you say and do, and you don't need to give any solutions to problems there exists. You might go as well to say that we need pink unicorns to solve the world's problems. You just stand in the way of everything that would be used to make good. There are people who actually try to make the world a better place and remove poverty and hunger, but because their solutions do not include flying cows, people like you try to prevent it from happening and bitch about the people who try to help instead.

I know you're young and naive, but if you really want to change something some day, you need to come up with solutions instead of problems.



Ei Kiinasti.

Eikä Japanisti.

Vaan pannaan jalalla koreasti.

 

Nintendo games sell only on Nintendo system.