[Paula D]

I don't know if you're trying to be passive aggressive or not Withano or you want a genuine debate.

If you don't want debate don't ask such an open question.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

[Firewire]

You can think what you want, but it doesn’t give you the right to actively discriminate. Having thoughts and feelings are different to actions.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Paula D

I don't know if you're trying to be passive aggressive or not Withano or you want a genuine debate.

If you don't want debate don't ask such an open question.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

He only wants one-sided rhetoric. Debate doesn’t Come into it.

[Kazanne]

Do you think this is acceptable

Youtube video

The older generation just have to die !!

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Firewire

You can think what you want, but it doesn’t give you the right to actively discriminate. Having thoughts and feelings are different to actions.

Who is actively discriminating against who? That is the question.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

Everyone has a right to an opinion. How they express that opinion is key, but as already stated, interpretation plays a big part too. Should we all we held to ransom by the sensibilities of some and the downright control by others?

I mean whats an acceptable way to express that a person believes women are worth less than men, for example, would be my next question. I cant think of one - obviously I'm aware I can't control their thought, but at what level are they allowed to express that opinion?

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Paula D

I don't know if you're trying to be passive aggressive or not Withano or you want a genuine debate.

If you don't want debate don't ask such an open question.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

I dont want a debate, I want a discussion. Which post did you find passive aggressive, I'm literally just asking questions about peoples responses.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Withano

Is there a line with what people can say, or can they say whatever they like

As long as the words don't encourage violence. If I said "I wish someone would punch Withano's face", it would be a bit different to "I really don't like Withano's face, it would be nice if it were punched, but I don't condone that."

Otherwise, yeah, I think people should say what they like as long as they're happy to face the consequences.

[AnnieK]

Should we have the right to take people's rights away? Yes people are entitled to have those views, no they are not acceptable but you can't fight oppression with oppression imo

[Paula D]

Originally Posted by Withano

I dont want a debate, I want a discussion. Which post did you find passive aggressive, I'm literally just asking questions about peoples responses.

No no you're not. You're attempting to put words into people's mouth.

Answer me this question? If we all decided tomorrow that No people are not entitled to any views how do you suggest that's policed?

Do you go around and do surgery to remove thoughts from people's heads?

See how this works?

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

[Cal.]

Of course ****ing not.

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Withano

I mean whats an acceptable way to express that a person believes women are worth less than men, for example, would be my next question. I cant think of one - obviously I'm aware I can't control their thought, but at what level are they allowed to express that opinion?

..well obviously you can express an opinion etc as many of us do in these things ...but with that opinion I personally just don’t think it’s helpful/progressive etc with just throwing a ‘label’ and ism at someone ...that’s only going to cause defensiveness and a potential inability to discuss...

[Paula D]

Very well put.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

[Paula D]

Originally Posted by AnnieK

Should we have the right to take people's rights away? Yes people are entitled to have those views, no they are not acceptable but you can't fight oppression with oppression imo

Originally Posted by Cal.

Of course ****ing not.

Very simplistic view of the world.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

[Paula D]

Sorry Ann, that was a reply to Cal

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Paula D

No no you're not. You're attempting to put words into people's mouth.

Answer me this question? If we all decided tomorrow that No people are not entitled to any views how do you suggest that's policed?

Do you go around and do surgery to remove thoughts from people's heads?

See how this works?

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

I feel like youre derailing the thread somewhat and I dont completely understand why.. your Irish referendum post made a lot of sense, you clearly stated where your line was, everything after that seemed to be fighting for the sake of it.

[Paula D]

Originally Posted by Withano

I feel like youre derailing the thread somewhat and I dont completely understand why.. your Irish referendum post made a lot of sense, you clearly stated where your line was, everything after that seemed to be fighting for the sake of it.

Oh hang on now, I'm not allowed to post now because I don't agree with you?

You've asked questions, I've answered them. I've asked you questions you haven't answered any of them.

The Irish referendum example is a perfectly valid one. I don't agree with other people's view on it but I believe in their right to hold that view.

What did you not understand about that?

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Paula D

Oh hang on now, I'm not allowed to post now because I don't agree with you?

You've asked questions, I've answered them. I've asked you questions you haven't answered any of them.

The Irish referendum example is a perfectly valid one. I don't agree with other people's view on it but I believe in their right to hold that view.

What did you not understand about that?

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

Reread my post and take a breather. Jeeze. I literally said your irish referendum post made a lot of sense.

[Paula D]

Originally Posted by Withano

Reread my post and take a breather. Jeeze. I literally said your irish referendum post made a lot of sense.

Yes but after that I can't ask you questions?

How about you answer some of them?

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Paula D

Yes but after that I can't ask you questions?

How about you answer some of them?

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

Which ones specifically.

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by AnnieK

Should we have the right to take people's rights away? Yes people are entitled to have those views, no they are not acceptable but you can't fight oppression with oppression imo

..yeah I agree, Annie..with trying to fight oppression with oppression, that whole concept will just create a standing still as opposed to moving forward etc...I mean, if you’re trying to discuss with someone you feel is any type of ‘ism/phobic’...surely it’s about trying to create an understanding of that and how/why it’s felt in the first place to create a common ground of communication..because that person’s views are going to be held by a wider society, not just that one single voice...so closing it all down and name calling etc is not going to help anything to progress...surely we have to hear worries/concerns/fears etc to be able to begin to tackle solutions...

[Paula D]

Originally Posted by Withano

Which ones specifically.

If your belief is that people are not "entitled" to their views how do you suggest policing thoughts?

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by AnnieK

Should we have the right to take people's rights away? Yes people are entitled to have those views, no they are not acceptable but you can't fight oppression with oppression imo

Originally Posted by Ammi

..yeah I agree, Annie..with trying to fight oppression with oppression, that whole concept will just create a standing still as opposed to moving forward etc...I mean, if you’re trying to discuss with someone you feel is any type of ‘ism/phobic’...surely it’s about trying to create an understanding of that and how/why it’s felt in the first place to create a common ground of communication..because that person’s views are going to be held by a wider society, not just that one single voice...so closing it all down and name calling etc is not going to help anything to progress...surely we have to hear worries/concerns/fears etc to be able to begin to tackle solutions...

.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Paula D

If your belief is that people are not "entitled" to their views how do you suggest policing thoughts?

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Withano

obviously I'm aware I can't control their thought, but at what level are they allowed to express that opinion?

I guess I more think along the lines of

People have the right to anything that is valid. There isnt a valid reason to hate an entrie group, there isn't a valid reason to steal or murder either. Nobody has that 'right'. (Maybe we're interpreting the word 'entitled' differently)

I'm well aware that I cant change their thought, if a person believes they have the right to steal or murder or hate an entire group, I'd argue that they do not, I wouldn't argue that I can police their thoughts.

[smudgie]

Difficult one.
I would say if someone believes it to be racist, sexist, homophobic then act upon it it’s wrong.
However, if someone genuinely doesn’t believe it, or understand it, they are entitled to their opinions, just as others are entitled to try and explain to them the error of their ways.