Freedom of speech and protest

[rederob]

Some might argue that disbelief of anything in the Bible is intolerant.

That's just an "argument."
Are they actually showing intolerance?

It's a fallacious assumption

Perhaps, but not a logical fallacy.

 

[SirRumpole]

That's just an "argument."
Are they actually showing intolerance?

Ask Richard Dawkins.



Anyway I have no desire to enter into a religious debate, I don't care much for theology and while I respect the right of people to peacefully practise their religion I oppose religious institutions exerting power over individuals.

 

[rederob]

Ask Richard Dawkins.
Anyway I have no desire to enter into a religious debate, I don't care much for theology and while I respect the right of people to peacefully practise their religion I oppose religious institutions exerting power over individuals.

It's a debate about what it means to be a bigot, rather than being about "beliefs."

 

[SirRumpole]

It's a debate about what it means to be a bigot, rather than being about "beliefs."

Does it really matter ?

Do you think intolerance to fairy tales presented as truth is bigotry ?

And even if it is, "bigotry" is just a word, but it's a pejorative used to deflect meaningful debate about the evidence for beliefs because the people who call others bigots have no evidence to back up their claims.

 

[rederob]

And even if it is, "bigotry" is just a word, but it's a pejorative used to deflect meaningful debate about the evidence for beliefs because the people who call others bigots have no evidence to back up their claims.

That's a complete nonsense.
Do you actually understand the concept of "tolerance?"
You need to go and study some epistemology and come to grips with how knowledge and belief are treated as distinct domains.

 

[wayneL]

That's a complete nonsense.
Do you actually understand the concept of "tolerance?"
You need to go and study some epistemology and come to grips with how knowledge and belief are treated as distinct domains.

Hmm, that may be so.

But to choose something topical, if I were to poo-hoo the concept of 100 genders, is that from a point of knowledge, or belief?

 

[SirRumpole]

That's a complete nonsense.
Do you actually understand the concept of "tolerance?"
You need to go and study some epistemology and come to grips with how knowledge and belief are treated as distinct domains.

Yeah right rob, I'm afraid my tolerance to your hair splitting has now expired.

This is a meaningless argument. I have no idea what you are trying to prove.

People can believe anything they want as far as I care but unless they can back it up with some solid evidence I have a right to remain intolerant to them and tell them to go away and not bother me with their unfounded beliefs.

 

[rederob]

People can believe anything they want as far as I care but unless they can back it up with some solid evidence I have a right to remain intolerant to them and tell them to go away and not bother me with their unfounded beliefs.

Little wonder you say strange things as you have real difficulties with what words means in the context they are used.
As I said, go and read up on epistemology as you are confusing concepts.
Religion is about "faith" which is a conviction personally held and requires no evidence.

 

[rederob]

Hmm, that may be so.

But to choose something topical, if I were to poo-hoo the concept of 100 genders, is that from a point of knowledge, or belief?

Probably sheer ignorance.

 

[SirRumpole]

Little wonder you say strange things as you have real difficulties with what words means in the context they are used.
As I said, go and read up on epistemology as you are confusing concepts.
Religion is about "faith" which is a conviction personally held and requires no evidence.

That's fine, but when religious people start preaching in the street and wonder why no one listens they never think it's because of a lack of evidence.

 

[Smurf1976]

Religion is about "faith" which is a conviction personally held and requires no evidence.

Agreed.

An issue of relevance though is that almost certainly rather a lot of those who voice their opinion on all sorts of matters are doing it in a religious manner in practice. That is, they have a conviction that the issue is real and serious but have personally seen no evidence that this is so.

That's not to say they are wrong as such but there does seem to be a lot of "jump on the bandwagon" sort of stuff going on without real knowledge on the part of those involved.

Exceptions of course as with anything.

 

[Smurf1976]

Do you actually understand the concept of "tolerance?"

The problem is that concepts such as tolerance, bigotry, freedom of speech and others are often things which are "subject to you agreeing with me".

It's dead easy to find people who will say they are absolutely tolerant, they support freedom of speech and they most certainly are not a bigot.

Then watch what happens when they discover that what you're going to say is the exact opposite of their own personal views on whatever subject.

Some will grit their teeth and hand you the microphone or whatever but reality is many don't actually support freedom of speech or tolerance at all. What they support is your right to agree with them.

 

[rederob]

Agreed.
An issue of relevance though is that almost certainly rather a lot of those who voice their opinion on all sorts of matters are doing it in a religious manner in practice. That is, they have a conviction that the issue is real and serious but have personally seen no evidence that this is so.
That's not to say they are wrong as such but there does seem to be a lot of "jump on the bandwagon" sort of stuff going on without real knowledge on the part of those involved.
Exceptions of course as with anything.

Opinions are not equal.
Some people learn a lot to offer their opinion, like doctors or lawyers, and get paid for it. It doesn’t mean they are right, but it is a well-informed opinion and differs from a guess assumed from an imaginary god's commandments.

The problem is that concepts such as tolerance, bigotry, freedom of speech and others are often things which are "subject to you agreeing with me".
It's dead easy to find people who will say they are absolutely tolerant, they support freedom of speech and they most certainly are not a bigot.
Then watch what happens when they discover that what you're going to say is the exact opposite of their own personal views on whatever subject.
Some will grit their teeth and hand you the microphone or whatever but reality is many don't actually support freedom of speech or tolerance at all. What they support is your right to agree with them.

While concepts are nuanced, words and actions over time draw their boundary lines.
In some cases specific laws are enacted so that these boundaries are not infringed without penalty.
However the idea of "not agreeing" is of itself not what is at issue. Instead we look at how that is expressed, and consider the context (which in these cases could be likened to intent). Your example may involve aspects of the concepts but are more akin to hypocrisy.

 

[qldfrog]

What you call facts i can call opinion.
No better example than the co2 hysteria on global warming: our latest religion, but same on islam or veganism
There are facts
And there is presentations of facts
A Muslim decapitates 3 people in the street with a kitchen knife
One fact (that you can choose or not to reveal)
Then 2 opinions
-He has mental history
Or
-He is applying his religion to the letter

Not that easy clear cut
And being a Mullah or a NZ PM does not qualify you better to decide

My 2c only

 

[rederob]

What you call facts i can call opinion.
No better example than the co2 hysteria on global warming: our latest religion, but same on islam or veganism
There are facts
And there is presentations of facts
A Muslim decapitates 3 people in the street with a kitchen knife
One fact (that you can choose or not to reveal)
Then 2 opinions
-He has mental history
Or
-He is applying his religion to the letter

Not that easy clear cut
And being a Mullah or a NZ PM does not qualify you better to decide

My 2c only

Facts speak for themselves, whereas your opinions may be baseless or ill founded.
CO2 hysteria is an "opinion" however the role of CO2 in climate science is based on principles of physics.
WRT to your decapitation example, if the evidence shows a history of mental issues then it ceases to be an "opinion" and if the event was premeditated with clear evidence of rationale then that too ceases to be "opinion".

 

[basilio]

The people who rebel these days - and why they are rebelling.

 

[qldfrog]

They believed too,
https://images.app.goo.gl/T2YPbZKq1qcbhNLb7
There was a perfectly acknowledged at the time sciences on racially based IQ and potential
You just had to believe
They only lacked objectivity and common sense: 80 y later, lesson not learnt and fanatism unleashed

 

[qldfrog]

I could have used red guards or soviet marches but it seemed some people still believe these were the rightful and still want socialism so not good to make a point

 

[cynic]

Contrary to a certain zealously expressed opinion, from the resident religious zealot, facts either are, or are not! They do not speak for themselves(unless they are opinionated!)

 

[qldfrog]

Facts speak for themselves, whereas your opinions may be baseless or ill founded.
CO2 hysteria is an "opinion" however the role of CO2 in climate science is based on principles of physics.
WRT to your decapitation example, if the evidence shows a history of mental issues then it ceases to be an "opinion" and if the event was premeditated with clear evidence of rationale then that too ceases to be "opinion".

I bypass the CO2 science as indeed there are greenhouse gases co2 ch4
or water
Let's drink wine to combat GW
And i am not going to repeat again that earth must have been a living superheated hell when co2 were 10 times aka 1000% higher..imagine..

But what do you define as mental illness?
Someone bashing his head on the floor 5 times a day to the point of having forehead scars?
Normal?
I have my opinion and probably differ from yours
Normality is very subjective
Anyway on the matter of extinction rebellion, it is a warm feeling each time i see one of these ignorant glued to a road
Can not do better to completely discredit whatever message they want to give usually a mix of lgbt rights socialism and pseudo environmental garbage while they accept welfare straight from our iron and coal mines, and debt inflicted on our next generation.
They had a blockade planned yesterday at 7am in brisbane
3 protesters attended
7am ..far too early for these dedicated champion of the planet
I am out now