Should tolerant people tolerate intolerence?

[anything I don't mind]

No it doesn't. Plenty of societies have done that without the option of choosing someone who represents them.

Democracy is the act of partaking in the process of creating and ensuring the running of a legitimate state who's interests represent ALL the people who reside inside of the state (regardless of opinion, citizenship, ethnicity and so on). One of the functional aspects of this is voting for representatives, but is not the soul action. Paying your taxes is partaking in democracy (as you are legitimising the state that is collecting them). Driving legally is partaking in democracy, again by legitimising the state who holds the authority on driving. Not voting is being a part of democracy in that you are consciously accepting that the state ultimately will run in your best interests without your input.

This is just incorrect.

Democracy gives people the illusion that they are taking part in the political process. It also is not about representing "all" the people but only the majority. Paying your taxes has nothing to do with democracy. People are forced to pay taxes, paying taxes in no way what so ever legitimises the state or democracy. Having a driving licence has nothing to do with democracy either and it does not legitimise the state either. Not voting by definition is not taking part in a democracy, i mean come on. Talk about twisting everything to meet your views.

 

[Haggisman]

If we had "mob rule" the rights of the minority would always be oppressed by the majority, free speech would be eroded overnight, minor political parties would be banned & our society would stagnate.

Have you looked at where this country is heading recently? Replace "majority" and "minority" with "those with money" and "those without" and that's pretty much what you've got.

Paying your taxes is partaking in democracy (as you are legitimising the state that is collecting them)...

Driving legally is partaking in democracy, again by legitimising the state who holds the authority on driving...

Except that neither of those are good examples because you aren't given the choice.

Not voting is being a part of democracy in that you are consciously accepting that the state ultimately will run in your best interests without your input.

So if refusing to be a part of the democratic system is classed as accepting the democratic system, how do you go about showing that you don't recognise the authority of the democratic system?

 

[elmarko]

How about sanctions on Jews owning property/businesses in nazi germany, in the years preceeding ww2?

Voting to end democracy is not democracy.

Well, we should be able to vote to change our method of government, just not to vote to enable the oppression of minority groups.

There could be other theoretical modes of governance which actually enable a greater level of personal freedom & protection of personal rights - democracy I doubt is the best method of all.

 

[elmarko]

This is just incorrect.

Democracy gives people the illusion that they are taking part in the political process. It also is not about representing "all" the people but only the majority. Paying your taxes has nothing to do with democracy. People are forced to pay taxes, paying taxes in no way what so ever legitimises the state or democracy. Having a driving licence has nothing to do with democracy either and it does not legitimise the state either. Not voting by definition is not taking part in a democracy, i mean come on. Talk about twisting everything to meet your views.

The beef you have with democracy has nothing to do with a homophobic couple discriminating against two gay people.

You are criticising one of the very few good things to come from democracy (acceptance of things which cause no objective harm).

If you want to have a go at democracy in general for the reasons you stated, then fair enough - but the flaws of democracy do not validate individuals "right to bigotry".

 

[Haggisman]

hmm.. random forum is random.. or i screwed up somewhere... double post anyway =P

 

[elmarko]

Have you looked at where this country is heading recently? Replace "majority" and "minority" with "those with money" and "those without" and that's pretty much what you've got.

I'm well aware of the problems of inequality & inequity in democratic capitalist nations, but I'd say these problems are more to do with capitalism than democracy - the two things are not intrinsically linked.

 

[Haggisman]

I'm well aware of the problems of inequality & inequity in democratic capitalist nations, but I'd say these problems are more to do with capitalism than democracy - the two things are not intrinsically linked.

I can't argue with that, but I disagree with your claim that one of the benefits of democracy is "acceptance of things which cause no objective harm".

In theory yes, but then you could say the same for communism, which can be interpreted as aiming for equality in everything.

 

[anything I don't mind]

The beef you have with democracy has nothing to do with a homophobic couple discriminating against two gay people.

You are criticising one of the very few good things to come from democracy (acceptance of things which cause no objective harm).

If you want to have a go at democracy in general for the reasons you stated, then fair enough - but the flaws of democracy do not validate individuals "right to bigotry".

We came to democracy because someone used the argument that by my logic it would end up with the majority dictating to the minority, which i said is exactly what democracy is.

When the state "protects" individuals from harmless bigotry like they did in the case of the gays wanting to sleep in a hotel. They are infringing on the rights of the hotel owners and this is the state dictating to other people what they think. This is not compatible with a free society.

If you are for a free society than you have to give people the right to be prejudice against other people for whatever reason they chose, as long as it does not break other laws, ie no violence etc. If you think you have the right, via the state, to dictate what is bigotry and what is prejudice and what is allowed and not allowed in that context, then you are no better than the bigots you claim to hate.

 

[elmarko]

I can't argue with that, but I disagree with your claim that one of the benefits of democracy is "acceptance of things which cause no objective harm".

In theory yes, but then you could say the same for communism, which can be interpreted as aiming for equality in everything.

Communism wasn't known for it's acceptance.

Communism is a pretty bad thing to reference anyway, it never happened - all that came from it was a state authoritarian dictatorship - being governed by individuals as opposed to a rational/reasoned & consistent set of laws.

Democracy has provided a greater level of protection for minority groups compared to other historical systems (it's all comparative not absolute) - this is a pretty clear fact.

I'm not saying it's a great system by any means, but it's one good thing.

 

[hurfdurf]

The rights of the homosexuals trumped that of those following a made up book full of nonsense, this should not be surprising in the slightest and is good and proper.

It's very simple, replace that with which you are discriminating against with Black, we have rules in this country to protect against racism, something which an awful lot of people wish was not the case and wish they could be. Over the years it has gotten better as we have dragged people kicking and screaming forward towards not being racist, we are having to do the same with idiot homophobes.

 

[anything I don't mind]

Homosexual rights do not exist.

Humans (people) have rights, what sexual preference you have does not give you more rights.

 

[hurfdurf]

Homosexual rights do not exist.

Humans (people) have rights, what sexual preference you have does not give you more rights.

Blacks/Women's rights do not exist.

Humans (people) have rights, what race/gender you are does not give you more rights.

 

[elmarko]

When the state "protects" individuals from harmless bigotry like they did in the case of the gays wanting to sleep in a hotel. They are infringing on the rights of the hotel owners and this is the state dictating to other people what they think. This is not compatible with a free society

You deem it harmless, perhaps others may not.

Rights of the hotel owners?, you don't have the right to practice bigotry - it amazes me when people criticise the ECHR then starting wailing to it when they feel there "right to oppress" is being curtailed.

A free society?, your talking about an "anything goes" society, with no laws, no restrictions or anything.

While it sounds good on paper a vast majority of people are small minded & petty fools - our society is not advanced enough to allow for a "free for all society" - party also because we have people (like you) who think it's OK to discriminate against individuals.

Freedom does not mean freedom to discriminate and oppress.

It's not logically consistent for society for individuals in a society to practice what they would not like done back to them.

Would it be OK in your theoretical society for a person who took offence to being discriminated against to burn down the shop in retaliation? - as that's what a free for all society is.

 

[hurfdurf]

Shock horror that nerds on the internet think a free society would be great.

The reason being is they think that it's society holding them back and if they were free to do as they please they wouldn't be as disadvantaged as they are, when in reality the crippling awkwardness, lack of social awareness, spergfestialness and general life skills would result in them being in a much worse off position.

Same reason nerds fantasise about Zombie invasions so much

 

[elmarko]

The rights of the homosexuals trumped that of those following a made up book full of nonsense, this should not be surprising in the slightest and is good and proper.

It's very simple, replace that with which you are discriminating against with Black, we have rules in this country to protect against racism, something which an awful lot of people wish was not the case and wish they could be. Over the years it has gotten better as we have dragged people kicking and screaming forward towards not being racist, we are having to do the same with idiot homophobes.

Exactly.

I have no idea why people think they have the right to oppress & discriminate.

If the same arguments can be used by rapists & paedophiles to defend there actions - it really does show how weak they are.

It's a pathetic & desperate argument usually repeated by people who feel slighted for being challenged on there bigotry - you have the right to not be harmed personally & to practice things which cause harm, not to oppress others.

 

[elmarko]

Shock horror that nerds on the internet think a free society would be great.

The reason being is they think that it's society holding them back and if they were free to do as they please they wouldn't be as disadvantaged as they are, when in reality the crippling awkwardness, lack of social awareness, spergfestialness and general life skills would result in them being in a much worse off position.

Same reason nerds fantasise about Zombie invasions so much

Well, the concept of free society (when our species is more mature is fine) - just not the kind of freedom to abuse/oppress that's being proposed.

Hey, nothing wrong with nerds (or zombie films).

 

[Haggisman]

An interesting point to add into this is (and I'm sure it's been mentioned before):

Were they refused a room outright, or simply refused a double room because they weren't married and instead offered a twin or 2 single rooms?

If the latter, would the same legal implications apply if it were a heterosexual unmarried couple?

Communism wasn't known for it's acceptance.

Communism is a pretty bad thing to reference anyway, it never happened - all that came from it was a state authoritarian dictatorship - being governed by individuals as opposed to a rational/reasoned & consistent set of laws.

In practice no, it didn't work and probably never would however the theory behind it is sound, other than the fact it doesn't take into account human nature (which is a pretty major flaw!) but democracy is by no means perfect, and in this country at least appears to be rapidly turning into the same state authoritarian dictatorship.

I have no idea why people think they have the right to oppress & discriminate.

Oh that's an easy one. Religion.

what race/gender you are does not give you more rights.

If only

 

[hurfdurf]

If only

Indeed

 

[pingwing]

This is just incorrect.

Democracy gives people the illusion that they are taking part in the political process. It also is not about representing "all" the people but only the majority. Paying your taxes has nothing to do with democracy. People are forced to pay taxes, paying taxes in no way what so ever legitimises the state or democracy. Having a driving licence has nothing to do with democracy either and it does not legitimise the state either. Not voting by definition is not taking part in a democracy, i mean come on. Talk about twisting everything to meet your views.

Technically you are not forced to pay taxes in the sense you can leave the state and reside in another, therefore they are an option.

Driving is a choice, to choose to drive legally you HAVE to have a license issued by the state, so by driving legally you are endorsing the legitimacy of the state. Same deal as getting a passport.

The bit at the start is just one form of Democracy. To say Democracy is just about voting and representation is delusional as you are saying that this majority have control no matter what and that power is only exerted through the actions of the government of the state.

Except that neither of those are good examples because you aren't given the choice.



So if refusing to be a part of the democratic system is classed as accepting the democratic system, how do you go about showing that you don't recognise the authority of the democratic system?

Both examples are ultimately a choice as you are always free to live in another state and free not to drive.

Not voting is not refusing to be a part of the democratic system, it is merely expressing that either the system will does not represent your personal views in the confines of a political party or that the political parties as a whole will do a good job of ensuring your freedom to be a free individual.

To show you don't recognise the authority of the institutions of the state you have to directly oppose the institutions of the state with active participation (against it). Simple example is physically attacking the institutions, which is silly. The problem is it is almost impossible to actively go against the state in a manner of trying to deny the states authority without hurting someone

 

[Devrij]

you have the right to not be harmed personally & to practice things which cause harm

Where is the line though? I'm sure there are harmless practices that are outlawed. Like what if I wanted to have a tommy tank on the bus? no one is being harmed, but I'd be tazered pretty sharpish. Who judges where the harm lies when we are talking about emotional harm? On what belief system is it grounded? I might be equally upset that I am refused credit on the basis of my income, but a business can do that. Whereas if I say something about a penis in a room full of children I would be "harming" them. Our moral code is what decides these subjective interdictions. Objectively, a 13 yr old girl is perfectly ready to have a sexual relationship. Morally, we recoil at the thought.

I think the issue is who decides what constitutes harm in your ideal system. One day, we might decide that Judaism is causing harm and we've gone full circle.