Lyaiera wrote: » This phrase always annoys me, "these so-called liberals." It doesn't have to be "so-called liberals," it can be used with any group. On the face of it it's calling out hypocrisy, but it never really is. It's used as a way to dismiss people's beliefs. It's always seems to imply that the group it's being aimed at is so ludicrous that it can't be really representative. A short hand for "You don't really believe that!" I don't have as big a problem with hypocrisy as others do. I know that people want to act one way but they're not so perfect as to always act that way. I understand that people face difficulties that makes them live a way they'd prefer not to. If someone believes in something I won't tell them they don't believe in it. I will certainly tell them their belief is stupid, bigoted, irrational, damaging, inconsequential, irrelevant, etc. But I won't tell them they don't have that belief. And "these so-called liberals" always seems to do that. If haven't said it but I can imagine saying, "these so-called christians" implying they say they're Christians but they're not really. They might talk the talk but they don't walk the walk, as if what you do counts for everything but what you say is irrelevant. I think people need to separate belief and action. You are entitled to believe religion is an evil on the world, you are not entitled to oppress a religious person for their belief. And to go back to the original point, we have nothing to go on here on boards but what people say (where I would see a direct line from their belief.) You need to trust that what someone says they do rather than doubt they even hold their beliefs in the first place. Unless they say they stole a penguin from Dublin Zoo/Fota/etc.
Lyaiera wrote: » I think people need to separate belief and action. You are entitled to believe religion is an evil on the world, you are not entitled to oppress a religious person for their belief.
Lyaiera wrote: » If someone believes in something I won't tell them they don't believe in it.
krudler wrote: » If that relgious belief includes putting women to death for the crime of being raped, damn straight those people should be oppressed.
Jester252 wrote: » So you what to stop oppression of women by a certain group of people in a religion by oppressing everyone in that religion.
shopaholic01 wrote: » Are I going mad or was this thread closed down earlier?
Cathal Cloch wrote: » Beliefs exist only in the mind. Putting people to death is behaviour. You can't oppress people for beliefs - only actions that might be an expression of those beliefs.
DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: » 'I will certainly tell them their belief is stupid, bigoted, irrational, damaging, inconsequential irrelevant etc'. You automatically assume that you're right and they're wrong.
1ZRed wrote: » No, no no. She's left and they're right
Cathal Cloch wrote: » That's not oppression. If it were oppression then that would be a little like saying 'Your not allowing me to beat my Wife is oppressing me'. Which would be a bit mad.
Jester252 wrote: » No what would be a bit mad is oppressing people because they have the same religion as scum who treat women like property.
Cathal Cloch wrote: » Are there any examples you can think of where entire groups are oppressed because of the behaviour of some members?
Cathal Cloch wrote: » That would be oppressing people on personal or societal prejudices about a group rather than people of the group's behaviour. Are there any examples you can think of where entire groups are oppressed because of the behaviour of some members?
If that relgious belief includes putting women to death for the crime of being raped, damn straight those people should be oppressed.
Jester252 wrote: » Well that what the poster called for
Bullchomper wrote: » I think, historically, people who were oppressed were never oppressed due to their behaviour.
Cathal Cloch wrote: » Yep. Like the native people of South/North America or Australia. They were a damned nuisance to the colonists who wanted their land and resources. What a familiar tune, eh?
mango salsa wrote: » It particularly annoys me how people see liberalism as left wing - Economic liberalism is certainly not left wing
Lyaiera wrote: » These so-called liberals This phrase always annoys me, "these so-called liberals." It doesn't have to be "so-called liberals," it can be used with any group. On the face of it it's calling out hypocrisy, but it never really is. It's used as a way to dismiss people's beliefs. It's always seems to imply that the group it's being aimed at is so ludicrous that it can't be really representative. A short hand for "You don't really believe that!" I don't have as big a problem with hypocrisy as others do. I know that people want to act one way but they're not so perfect as to always act that way. I understand that people face difficulties that makes them live a way they'd prefer not to. If someone believes in something I won't tell them they don't believe in it. I will certainly tell them their belief is stupid, bigoted, irrational, damaging, inconsequential, irrelevant, etc. But I won't tell them they don't have that belief. And "these so-called liberals" always seems to do that. If haven't said it but I can imagine saying, "these so-called christians" implying they say they're Christians but they're not really. They might talk the talk but they don't walk the walk, as if what you do counts for everything but what you say is irrelevant. I think people need to separate belief and action. You are entitled to believe religion is an evil on the world, you are not entitled to oppress a religious person for their belief. And to go back to the original point, we have nothing to go on here on boards but what people say (where I would see a direct line from their belief.) You need to trust that what someone says they do rather than doubt they even hold their beliefs in the first place. Unless they say they stole a penguin from Dublin Zoo/Fota/etc.
What's the story with the so-called liberals on After Hours? They come out with their whole "live and let live" lines, yet when people have different opinions to them, "live and let live" goes out the window. It's fascinating reading comments from people complaining about issues, and then complaining about people who take to the streets to protest about those or other issues. The excuses are laughable, such as when they say they don't want to protest about an issue because some other people at the protest don't share their exact political beliefs. Apparently protesting achieves nothing anyway. History begs to differ. It's interesting too when conflicting views lead to violence and public disorder. If it's in a faraway place there's nothing all that wrong with it, fair play to the side fighting for the viewpoint they agree with. If it's closer to home violence and public order should be clamped down on by the state, liberalism goes out the window, and those who use violence should be condemned and discredited. Pity for them that the roots of liberalism go back to violent revolution. Many of these so-called liberals wet themselves over news items about the British royal family, yet liberals should fundamentally oppose monarchies and hereditary privilege. I particularly enjoy the "Legalise Cannabis" brigade who go on about how it's got so many uses apart from getting people high - it's good for medicinal purposes, and it's good for making rope. Why not call a spade a spade and say you want it legalised so you can use it legally to get stoned? The Legalise Cannabis crowd are a joke. I'll pay attention to one of these groups when they advocate the legalisation of Heroin too. You do realise that a lot of the problems associated with heroin stem from it being illegal? No, thought not. Some people like to describe themselves as liberals, but let's be honest, they're not. Live and let live, unless you have a different opinion to me and dare to stand up for it.http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057016256
Cathal Cloch wrote: » And I pointed out that we cannot oppress people for beliefs. Beliefs are not immoral behaviour. If people's beliefs inform, or are used as a lame excuse, for shitty behaviour then we should try to oppress suppress the behaviour to protect people who might be victims of it - we can't do a thing about the beliefs.
mikom wrote: » Does this locked thread look familiar............ Someone needs a liberal dose of originality.
