Follow @PoliticsIE
 
 
 
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 31

Thread: Of tolerance, open-mindedness, bigotry, liberalism and foreign affairs

  1. #1
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    373
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default Of tolerance, open-mindedness, bigotry, liberalism and foreign affairs

    Have you ever thought about the new political agenda? I'm very interested in how new and old issues are propogated. The formula seems to be thus:

    1. If it has been opposed by society then it is worthy of consideration. The more opposition to it the more worthy it has become.
    2. Initial opposition has be criticised by framing the opponents as close minded. Calls are then made for open-mindedness.
    3. Appeals thereafter can be made on the basis of tolerance.
    4. If the opposition presists the opponents can be told to keep their opinions to themselves, not be be judgemental, and above all that "I respect your opinion" (this is important for some reason)
    5. The critics that remain can be dismissed as being "bigots" or "bigoted". Funnily enough the context in which the word is used illustrates what the user thinks it means but if they were to refer to a dictionary they'd find it means something else entirely.
    6. Human nature can be pointed to (ie. you can't change people or their behaviour)
    7. Appeals to transnationalism can be made (ie. "it is acceptable in other countries", and so it should be allowed here)
    8. The country can be run down (ie. "why can't we do anything right?", "look how well it works in Holland")


    I want to share the following story from a recent news article. I'm not open-minded about it. I am completely against what has happened. I think it is abhorrent. The comments below the article, in some places, are more insightful than the article itself and they illustrate, in some places, just this kind of thought process.

    With all these factors in mind above in mind .... how can a commitment to open-mindedness, tolerance, non-judgementalism, etc. etc. etc. be squared with this ....

    Dutch court overturns paedophile association ban TheJournal.ie

  2. #2
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    352
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    To me the limit of tolerance is the advocacy of harm to others.

    Seems to me that this group is comparable to a group that advocates violence, be it for religious, racial, grounds or whatever. What they are calling for is to harm a group of people, whether they believe it or not, and therefore a ban could reasonably be justified.

    Whether or not a ban would achieve a better or worse result in terms of child welfare, I couldn't say. It might be better to have these people out in the open where they can be seen and ridiculed rather than driving them underground, where they may act on their desires. If a ban would give the best result, that's fine by me. I honestly have no idea one way or the other.

    This probably shouldn't be left up to the courts, but rather legislated for, whatever the correct response is.

    Your list is ...simplistic and unhelpful. There is no one size fits all explanation or solution for things.

  3. #3
    Politics.ie Member sauntersplash's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    3,456
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    I don't think it's completely absurd to imagine a future where the rights of children extend to sexuality.

    Tolerence is rationally necessary, considering the moral fallibility of the staus quo as outlined in the OP.
    "No." - Rosa Parks

  4. #4
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    373
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wilting View Post
    To me the limit of tolerance is the advocacy of harm to others.

    Seems to me that this group is comparable to a group that advocates violence, be it for religious, racial, grounds or whatever. What they are calling for is to harm a group of people, whether they believe it or not, and therefore a ban could reasonably be justified.

    Whether or not a ban would achieve a better or worse result in terms of child welfare, I couldn't say. It might be better to have these people out in the open where they can be seen and ridiculed rather than driving them underground, where they may act on their desires. If a ban would give the best result, that's fine by me. I honestly have no idea one way or the other.

    This probably shouldn't be left up to the courts, but rather legislated for, whatever the correct response is.

    Your list is ...simplistic and unhelpful. There is no one size fits all explanation or solution for things.
    I didn't say that there was a "one size fits all explanation or solution for things."

  5. #5
    Politics.ie Member Hewson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    On the horizon
    Posts
    8,329
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sauntersplash View Post
    I don't think it's completely absurd to imagine a future where the rights of children extend to sexuality.

    Tolerence is rationally necessary, considering the moral fallibility of the staus quo as outlined in the OP.
    I have no idea what this means. Children are sexually unaware up to a certain point and all adults are, to all intents and purposes, sexless creatures on whom they depend for protection, nourishment and guidance.

    The notion that any organisation of adults should lobby for the right to have sex with children is monstrous.

    The only benefit I can see for allowing such a group to exist would be to flush out paedophiles into its ranks, where they can be identified and certified as a danger to society, after which they should be tagged.
    Abortion is an act of violence. Violence demeans humanity, particularly violence against women and children.

  6. #6
    Dylan2010
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hewson View Post
    The notion that any organisation of adults should lobby for the right to have sex with children is monstrous.
    and so would a communist group that advocated the end of private property but would you ban a group on the basis that their ideas were obscene or because they actually conspire or facilitate criminal activity?

  7. #7
    Dylan2010
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hewson View Post
    The notion that any organisation of adults should lobby for the right to have sex with children is monstrous.
    and so would a communist group that advocated the end of private property but would you ban a group on the basis that their ideas were obscene or because they actually conspire or facilitate criminal activity?

  8. #8
    Politics.ie Member Hewson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    On the horizon
    Posts
    8,329
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dylan2010 View Post
    and so would a communist group that advocated the end of private property but would you ban a group on the basis that their ideas were obscene or because they actually conspire or facilitate criminal activity?
    Promoting a political philosophy doesn't equate to doing permanent, irreparable harm to society's most vulnerable members.
    Abortion is an act of violence. Violence demeans humanity, particularly violence against women and children.

  9. #9
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    5,208
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Sick twisted ******************************s.





    Martijn Uittenbogaard, the leader of the kiddie fiddlers, Party of Neighbourly, Love, Freedom and Diversity.

    Party for Neighbourly Love, Freedom, and Diversity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The PNVD sought to have the legal age-of-consent lowered to 12, and, in the long run, completely eliminated (except in dependent or intrafamilial relationships.) They reason that only "coerced" or "dangerous" sexual activity should be punished. They also aimed to equalize the legal age where one can perform in pornography with the legal age-of-consent. Prostitution would be legal at the age of 16.[4] The PNVD wanted to legalise private use of child pornography (calling outlawing thereof "censorship" in the platform) and allow non-violent pornography to be screened on daytime television. Their platform also included legalization of humans engaging in sex with animals.[2]
    Treasurer Van den Berg claimed that, "Rearing is also about introducing children to sex".[7] Because of their controversial viewpoints on children and sexuality, they were often called "paedo(philes)-party" by the people and in the media.
    Also, the party's platform called for separate imprisonment facilities for sex offenders, arguing that the country would otherwise have indirect torture laws.[4]


    Marthijn Uittenbogaard with his chums Ad van den Berg and Norbert de Jonge.

    van den Berg was convicted of abusing an 11 year old boy and was discovered to have an under-age boyfriend.
    Last edited by Hitch 22; 3rd April 2013 at 07:05 PM.

  10. #10
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    736
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sauntersplash View Post
    I don't think it's completely absurd to imagine a future where the rights of children extend to sexuality.

    Tolerence is rationally necessary, considering the moral fallibility of the staus quo as outlined in the OP.
    Christ almighty. This must be one of the most reprehensible posts I have ever read. Jimmy Saville likes this.

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •