Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Christmas messages from politicians

Options
124678

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    catallus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭catallus


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    So in order to avoid being "intolerant", it's necessary not to believe that stupid ideas are stupid?

    No, it is necessary not to state that you find them acceptable.


  • Options
    #93
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    catallus wrote: »
    No, it is necessary not to state that you find them acceptable.

    So basically you have to agree with everything? If so, that is the most ridiculous and impractical criteria for tolerance ever. Entire companies are built upon people discussing ideas and criticising them. If there's any large scale project where criticism isn't allowed it'll be a unwholly mess.


  • Options
    #94
    catallus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭catallus


    Jernal wrote: »
    So basically you have to agree with everything? If so, that is the most ridiculous and impractical criteria for tolerance ever. Entire companies are built upon people discussing ideas and criticising them. If there's any large scale project where criticism isn't allowed it'll be a unwholly mess.

    No Jernal, that's not what I'm saying.

    If you disagree with something then you are intolerant of it and there is no mental or linguistic acrobatics that can absolve you of being intolerant of it. Stop treating intolerance as a being a dirty word and it might make it easier.

    But most people want to disagree with things but still think of themselves as being tolerant, so they hedge their feelings and words. Doublethink, if you like.


  • Options
    #95
    Knasher
    Registered Users Posts: 2,370 ✭✭✭Knasher


    catallus wrote: »
    Stop treating intolerance as a being a dirty word and it might make it easier.

    Intolerance is a dirty word. It's synonyms include bigotry, narrow-mindedness, fanaticism, dogmatism, prejudice, bias, sectarianism, one-sidedness, inequality, unfairness, injustice, discrimination. All of which are pretty negative words. Perhaps you are just using it far too lightly? Notable it is not a synonym with disagreement.


  • Options
    #96
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    catallus wrote: »
    No Jernal, that's not what I'm saying.

    If you disagree with something then you are intolerant of it and there is no mental or linguistic acrobatics that can absolve you of being intolerant of it. Stop treating intolerance as a being a dirty word and it might make it easier.

    But most people want to disagree with things but still think of themselves as being tolerant, so they hedge their feelings and words. Doublethink, if you like.

    Ah I think I get you now. You don't associate negative connotations with the word intolerant. It's just another word for the concept of disagreement?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    catallus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭catallus


    Your transparent tactic of attempting to drag this off-topic by reducing the conversation to a clinical examination of syntax is a sad reflection on the open-mindedness which you claim to have. If the hypocrisy isn't plainly obvious I don't see why I should try to continue engaging with it. Some soul-searching needs to be done by a lot of people who seem to be so sure of themselves that they can unashamedly say they tolerate that which they disagree with. It might be well and good to treat everything like it's a written college assignment, but it is just the same cogs going around and around. I suspect it is all a game to a lot of posters on here.


  • Options
    #98
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    I really don't think you are using the same definition of intolerance that most of the world is using.


  • Options
    #99
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,795 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    catallus wrote: »
    If you disagree with something then you are intolerant of it and there is no mental or linguistic acrobatics that can absolve you of being intolerant of it.
    My girlfriend thinks olives taste good. I disagree. That doesn't make me intolerant of her liking for olives.

    Disagreement and intolerance are not the same thing, and it takes some pretty fancy mental and/or linguistic acrobatics to pretend that they are.


  • Options
    #100
    catallus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭catallus


    What the hell have olives got to do with anything??? Arrgh!

    Look if everyone wants to treat all this so flippantly that's ok. The associative dissonance on display here is confounding.


  • Options
    #101
    Sulla Felix
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,442 ✭✭✭Sulla Felix


    It's an analogy. :confused:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Teehee, you said anal.
    hehe anal,
    haha

    *snort*


  • Options
    #103
    catallus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭catallus


    Sulla Felix wrote: »
    It's an analogy. :confused:

    It is a false one if ever there was one.

    The subject of the thread is Sarky objecting to being sent christmas cards in the post! And his intolerance of it.


  • Options
    #104
    Sulla Felix
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,442 ✭✭✭Sulla Felix


    catallus wrote: »
    It is a false one if ever there was one.

    The subject of the thread is Sarky objecting to being sent christmas cards in the post! And his intolerance of it.
    The subject of that post was trying to explain to you the difference between disagreeing with something and being intolerant of it.


  • Options
    #105
    catallus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭catallus


    Sulla Felix wrote: »
    The subject of that post was trying to explain to you the difference between disagreeing with something and being intolerant of it.

    And. there. is. no. difference.


  • Options
    #106
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    catallus wrote: »
    It is a false one if ever there was one.

    The subject of the thread is Sarky objecting to being sent christmas cards in the post! And his intolerance of it.

    Jesus wept. I think you might want to read the first post again. There are a couple of nuanced aspects that I think have escaped your attention, such as the whole bloody point.


  • Options
    #107
    catallus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭catallus


    Sarky wrote: »
    Jesus wept. I think you might want to read the first post again. There are a couple of nuanced aspects that I think have escaped your attention, such as the whole bloody point.


    I got your point only too well. Your post was just a lazy swipe at our culture, in a forum where, let's face it, you don't have to try very hard to get the same old posters patting themselves on the back while they spout hideous discriminatory and slanderous remarks, but hey it's ok, we can all pat ourselves on the back cos it's only the aul Christians, right? HoHoHo, indeed.


  • Options
    #108
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,406 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    catallus wrote: »
    Sulla Felix wrote: »
    The subject of that post was trying to explain to you the difference between disagreeing with something and being intolerant of it.
    And. there. is. no. difference.
    I'll just add my voice to everybody else's - yes, there is a difference.

    I disagree with the statement that "golf is a good game". Doesn't mean that I'm intolerant of grown men and women who ruin a good walk in a field by trying to wallop drop, into a tiny hole, an even smaller ball using a stick singularly unsuitable for the purpose thereof. I just ignore golf; no intolerance at all.


  • Options
    #109
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    If that's how you read it then I'm not at all surprised you have problems with the various possible meanings of intolerance. I suppose you could try again, but you do seem to have made up your mind pretty staunchly as to what I meant, and no amount of me explaining what I was getting at will change your opinion. You clearly know me better than I know myself. Shall I just hand over my account password? There's not much point in me posting from here any more, when you can tell us all what I actually meant to type.


  • Options
    #110
    catallus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭catallus


    robindch wrote: »
    I'll just add my voice to everybody else's - yes, there is a difference.

    I disagree with the statement that "golf is a good game". Doesn't mean that I'm intolerant of grown men and women who ruin a good walk in a field by trying to wallop drop, into a tiny hole, an even smaller ball using a stick singularly unsuitable for the purpose thereof. I just ignore golf; no intolerance at all.

    Ok Robindch I get that. I'm not a child. The context matters here. The OP did not ignore X. He commented on it negatively.
    Sarky wrote: »
    If that's how you read it then I'm not at all surprised you have problems with the various possible meanings of intolerance. I suppose you could try again, but you do seem to have made up your mind pretty staunchly as to what I meant, and no amount of me explaining what I was getting at will change your opinion. You clearly know me better than I know myself. Shall I just hand over my account password? There's not much point in me posting from here any more, when you can tell us all what I actually meant to type.

    Now you're actually denying it? That you invited negative reaction to a pretty entrenched and benign part of our political culture, because you can't stand the idea of a politician taking a stance on religious or moral issues?

    And I can recognise intolerance when I see it, thanks.


  • Options
    #111
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    catallus wrote: »
    Now you're actually denying it?

    I'm denying that you know better than I do about the point of the post I wrote. I am basing this on the fact that I wrote the damn thing, and you did not.
    That you invited negative reaction to a pretty entrenched and benign part of our political culture, because you can't stand the idea of a politician taking a stance on religious or moral issues?

    I described getting unsolicited mail, expressed a personal dislike of religious iconography, observed that it isn't a smart political move to wish the blessings of the christian god on people who aren't christian, and then based on the letter bearing official City Council headers wondered aloud if it was at the taxpayer's expense and if there was a legal issue.

    You can go back and check if you don't believe me, the posts are right there for you. The mods will even confirm that I haven't edited any of them except for minor corrections. You're complaining about something I never said. And you are being deliciously ironic in your intolerance of my attempting to make this clear to you.
    And I can recognise intolerance when I see it, thanks.

    I'm sure you can. You seem to have a problem with seeing it when it's not there, however.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,406 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    catallus wrote: »
    Ok Robindch I get that. I'm not a child. The context matters here. The OP did not ignore X. He commented on it negatively.
    Looking back at the original post, I see that Sarky referred to the existence of a "dull nativity scene" on the card and wondered if the sender was "being a bit tasteless".

    It is stretching reality well beyond breaking point to think comments as gentle as that are in any way "intolerant".


  • Options
    #113
    catallus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭catallus


    robindch wrote: »

    It is stretching reality well beyond breaking point to think comments as gentle as that are in any way "intolerant".

    Just because the comments were gentle doesn't make it any better. Awful things can be and have been hidden in such benign comments. Given the Op's militant defence of these weasel words in the post immediately prior to yours, I must conclude that my suspicions are finally comprehensively justified.


  • Options
    #114
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,406 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    catallus wrote: »
    Just because the comments were gentle doesn't make it any better. Awful things can be and have been hidden in such benign comments.
    That's quite an intolerant point of view.


  • Options
    #115
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Wow. So I guess this whole thread was REALLY about someone putting me on f*cking trial for my militant gentleness. That's me told. Anyone else want to fling mud? Speculate on my parentage? Criticise my taste in music? Claim that yes, I do look fat in those jeans?


  • Options
    #116
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Sarky wrote: »
    Wow. So I guess this whole thread was REALLY about someone putting me on f*cking trial for my militant gentleness. That's me told. Anyone else want to fling mud? Speculate on my parentage? Criticise my taste in music? Claim that yes, I do look fat in those jeans?

    Can I fling mud? Please, please please! Can I fling mud?


  • Options
    #117
    catallus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭catallus


    robindch wrote: »
    That's quite an intolerant point of view.

    I'm willing to admit that I'm intolerant of a lot of things, and on this thread I'm being perhaps overly argumentative but that is only because the free-for-all intolerance on display (which is, to add insult to injury, being swept under the carpet in a pathetic and self-delusional attempt to portray the posters (most of them) as being reasonable) is being circle-jerked by posters whose only motivation seems to be denigration of a particular trait of our political culture. What gets me is that a lot of people would bend over backwards to avoid being labeled intolerant of anything at all. Which is fearsome, if one thinks about it.


  • Options
    #118
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Jernal wrote: »
    Can I fling mud? Please, please please! Can I fling mud?

    I know you love sticking the knife in when my back is turned, but could you wait until catallus is spent first? The chap is on a roll with all this Sarky's-a-self-delusional-intolerant-pathetic-weasel stuff.


  • Options
    #119
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    That's because the concept you refer to as 'intolerance' is wholly different from the concept others associate with that. If you can look past the label you might see there is some common ground there.


  • Options
    #120
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Sarky wrote: »
    I know you love sticking the knife in when my back is turned, but could you wait until catallus is spent first? The chap is on a roll with all this Sarky's-a-self-delusional-intolerant-pathetic-weasel stuff.

    Aw rats, if I remove the knife and stick it back in later will that count? I think I may have ruined this. :(


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    Geomy
    Registered Users Posts: 1,296 ✭✭✭Geomy


    Sarky wrote: »
    Wow. So I guess this whole thread was REALLY about someone putting me on f*cking trial for my militant gentleness. That's me told. Anyone else want to fling mud? Speculate on my parentage? Criticise my taste in music? Claim that yes, I do look fat in those jeans?

    In fairness now Sarky, you do come across a bit more strident than most of the other user's here.
    I think being a moderator probably saves you from infraction a lot of the time. ..

    How you get away with some post's is beyond me. ..


Advertisement