101flyboy said:
Man, I haven't been around for a bit, was busy with things. Anyway, no, it's not acceptable to be bigoted. It's that simple, and it should be treated as the negative thing it is. There is absolutely nothing redeeming in being against legal adult citizens solely for who they are. Wrong is wrong. We need to stop the PC crap and call things out for what they are.
Why? "Because" isn't an appropriate answer. If you're to defend your position, you need to give reason and meaning towards it. As it stands, you've only said "it should be this way because I say so" and havn't given any advantage that your beliefs are good, where as those that believe these people have the right to speak their mind have given numerous advantages in the form of not silencing ideas to formulate opinions in the people by themselves, whether they change their opinion to hate another race or strengthen their resolve to believe every race is equal; it doesn't matter as all type of thought is needed to reaffirm people's beliefs or to set beliefs they thought they had a true conviction in to mold them into who they will become. Meanwhile, you sit here, preaching that these bigots are incorrect without any solid proof to your claim. So, where is it? Where is this universal truth that being racist/sexist/homophobic is wrong?
Also, again, your definition of "politically correct" is not correct. And I quote:
Wikipedia said:
Political correctness (adjectivally, politically correct; both forms commonly abbreviated to PC) is a term which denotes language, ideas, policies, and behavior seen as seeking to minimize social and institutional offense in occupational, gender, racial, cultural, sexual orientation, religious belief, disability, and age-related contexts.
Saying that bigots are entitled to their opinion and that they are not wrong in having these ideals is the
exact opposite of being politically correct.
You're the one trying to promote political correctness here. Don't start using terms you don't understand to try and sound smarter because you end up invalidating your points as ignorant, much like your verbage.
101flyboy said:
People are entitled to their bigoted opinions and are entitled to express them, and they should be treated accordingly. There are responsibilities that come with freedom of speech.
Also, obviously no, religion doesn't justify atrocities, that's my point, though. That there are no justifications for things that are obviously wrong.
Yes. One of those responcibilities is that we let everyone express what they wish to express. That includes the beliefs that certain people are below others. If this is what a person truly believes, then they are correct for stating their beliefs to others and saying that "this is what I believe is right". You telling them that they're wrong by some virtue of the universe is absolutely bigoted. You are stating your own opinion, not fact! Treat it as such.
Then there comes to argument of religion, where your twisted logic hits that same speed bump. I'm going to take the Islamic religion as my example here. They believe that women are to be dependant on men and their entire culture revolves around this. This isn't to say the women are treated poorly, in fact they're treated very well and have a specific role in the family unit to ensure it runs well, but there is certain social ediquette that must be followed in the practices of Islam, much like the small example I gave. Women are protected by men and in return are given roles to keep them safe. This is what you're calling wrong, simply because women aren't equal to men according to our Western definition? If this is true, you really are being narrow-minded.
101flyboy said:
No-one chooses their sexuality. It's an immutable mental trait. It's natural. Homophobia is a personality disorder. It isn't natural, so therefore, it's clearly not something inborn.
Not a hard concept.
Actually...
Homosexuality is an abboration of our genetic programming. Attraction is supposed to happen when a member of the opposite sex (those we can reproduce with) chooses to take interest in you. Homosexuality, on the other hand, means attraction happens when someone of the same sex (those we
cannot reproduce with) chooses to take interest in you. At the same time, homophobia would be our internal instinct shying away from things that are abborations in our genetic programing. This isn't a choice! To say that is like saying being afraid of heights is a choice, that pulling away from fire is a choice,
that breathing is a choice! One may be afraid that when they ride the ferris wheel at the carnival that they'll fall down and die, despite seeing thousands of others get up and ride safely, the same way that a person will still be afraid that a gay person will be attracted to them, despite seeing that same person interact with a thousand other men perfectly fine; it's irrational and therefore not a choice!
As for it being immutable? We've actually begun to track the neural pathings to what causes homosexuality in people. We've looked at causes, events and circumstances that increase the potential for someone to become homosexual when their drive kicks in. We almost have sexuality down to a science, which means the next step is the manipulation of it -- something that seems very possible in our lifetime. By this account, sexuality is far more determined by your set of beliefs and what you've been subjected to, which makes it more of a choice than anything. Being straight or gay could very well be an internal choice based upon experiences in which the brain then creates synapses for the attraction that seems more desirable or appropriate to the individual. But that's really all theorhetical right now and is still under testing. Just thought it was a good point to consider.
101flyboy said:
Right and wrong is common sense. Common sense tells us what is right and wrong. Common sense should tell you that discriminating against a group of individuals solely for who they are, when who they are has no affect on your life or society in any inherently negative way, is irrational and should be treated as such.
Again, you bring up common sense. Who's common sense? As I have stated before, common sense one hundred years back was the exact opposite of what you're claiming it to be today. That was fact back then. Now you're saying the exact opposite should be fact. I believe the fact that the opinion of it could change so drastically in such a small amount of time would mean this isn't just a black and white issue and that both points have vadility.
As for the affect other races have? Well, look at The United States. A sizable enough portion of the black community in these settings have taken to violence, territorial beliefs and the discrimination of other races simply because they aren't as well off as others. I know there are certainly a lot of other diversities out there that do the same, including white people, but the ratio is astoundingly high in that particular race. And what? Because they're poor? They hide behind the guise of history to claim that people are still opressing them, which is untrue because many a black person has beocme successful after
working hard. A lot of people are poor and they don't start shooting people because of it.
Even further sickening is the self-entitlement other races seem to have after moving into a predominently white area. They believe that they should not have to abide by the simplest of rules already set out. I'll give an example: I used to work for a telecommunications company. I was in charge of customer service in the Ontario region of Canada. There are
a lot of chinese people in Ontario. Now, this became a serious problem for me and the company when
people who couldn't speak a word of english nor understand english were subscribing to the company's products. This created a problem that should never have existed, as you are
required to pass a language competency exam when immigrating for either english or french. This means either A) The govenment official was lazy and didn't perform the test (highly unlikely, but possible), B) The individual forgot the language either through learning disabilities or choice (slightly more likely), -or- C) They're choosing not to speak it and lying about their comprehension (most likely). In the end, my company had a Mandarin queue, which people still complained about because it wasn't their choice dialect, but I still see this as pandering to the unjustified complaints of another race who are actively refusing to speak the language of the country they're living in and instead choose to force the country into speaking their's. Not that I believe they need to forget whatever languages they've learned, but that they need to understand their language is not an official one of this part of the world and that if they plan to live there they need to respect the rules put into place, one of them being that everyone needs to know and speak one of those languages when conducting business unless otherwise agreed upon. If you want to make the argument that "race" involves only the colour of one's skin, well, you're more racist than you think.
101flyboy said:
The thing is, though, that just because a majority of people think one way, doesn't mean that opinion is right. It just means a lot of people are ignorant. Also, everyone obviously has the right to express their views, I never said differently. I said their views should be treated accordingly. You can express your views, but there are responsibilities that come with freedom of speech, and consequences for bad behavior.
Now, this is what gets me. You claim that "common sense dictates" this, that and the other thing, but then say the majority of people could also be wrong? So that means what you claim to be "common sense" could be subjected to the same logic, no, as common sense is dictated by the many? So, by extension, if enough people believe that all but their race should die, your logic of all races are equal would be wrong? Good to know we cleared that up! So basically what you're saying is that any minority is worng! Man, everything seems so much more clear now. I wish you had just said that in the first place! Now, what is a minority that we could eliminate? ...Oh, wait, right: other races.
101flyboy said:
If you want to hate, that's OK? No, it isn't. Hate isn't OK. There isn't anything redeeming of hatred. Hatred harms society, like murder, like rape, like disease. And it should be seen as such and treated as such.
But you seem to hate those that don't believe that equality is correct. So, hate is good? No wait, it isn't, because that means not everyone is equal! Shit... I'm confused... Could you explain it in a far more convoluted system of beliefs that goes against any sort of logical premise? Like, erm, a religion or something? I don't think I'm indoctrinated enough by your self-defeating and hypocritical rhetoric yet.
As a side note: can I be the Grand Magi to your Grand Imperial Wizard or whatever when you're done?
101flyboy said:
Being "uncomfortable around homosexuals" is a problem. There isn't anything OK with that. It's a negative. And it directly harms that irrationally uncomfortable person, because they are going to be freaking out and not behaving reasonably in certain situations, solely because of a persons' sexuality. They will miss out on certain activities or miss out on great friends because of their sexuality only. Gay/lesbian folks will feel shunned or disliked by these individuals. That is obviously not something that should be treated lightly. Preferences are what causes bigoted behavior. If you want to stop the issue, you have to go to the root of the problem ans see what is causing that, and make a change. And the thing that is causing this discomfort is homophobia. Thus, homophobia is a problem that needs to be eradicated, for the good of everyone.
There isn't a such thing as a gay lifestyle to begin with, so the problems in mentality start there.
Ok, now you're just talking crazy talk. Do you really believe people are that emotionally unstable that if they feel uncomfortable they're going to freak out? That if someone looks uncomfortable around them they'll feel like shit? "Common sense" dictates, as you put it, that you remove yourself from the situation and avoid similar situations as not to be impolite. People don't like certain other people. Get used to it!
Then there comes the argument that these people who feel uncomfortable around gays and lesbians needs to be wiped of their beleifs, despite you saying they're allowed to believe what they want. First off, you're now contradicting your only redeemable arugment in that you
do believe these people shouldn't have these values and they need to be changed, not that they're just wrong. Second, why is it wrong to be uncomfortable like that? As an example: I'm afraid of heights. Because of this, I'm not a huge fan of skydiving. I don't hang around skydivers and generally avoid them because it freaks me out. Extreme sports in general freka me out, actually, so I tend to avoid adrenaline junkies on the whole. Does this now make me a terrible person for not thursting myself into these social circles? Not really. Same could be applied for gay people. If you're not comfortable being around gay people, what's the issue of just not going to places that will obviously have gay people? It's a choice and you can't condemn them for it as that is not your place to do so. You do not have control over the action, thoughts, beliefs and feelings of others
and I would ask you kindly to not start spouting shit that says you do!!!
EDIT: Also, I'm curious as to why you decided to respond to everyone but me. Do you not believe your arguements can hold a candle to what I've said and chosen to ignore it? If you believe so strongly in your convictions, you should defend them.
