28 Oct 09, 2:19 PM
Gilles_de_Rais
UK(EC), 3 yrs
 |
Rhoobarb wrote:
Wasn't that pretty much what the OP was saying? That people are very quick to get aggressive and to take things personally instead of just having a difference of opinion agreeably. |
Oh, i don't think we can improve on that. The real questions are more, IMHO:
1- Why some people fail to follow that simple recipe for greater harmony and peace?
2- Are ICers more or less prone to adopt that rationally non-aggressive behaviour?
There is no right and wrong when it comes to sex ; only informed consent...
|
28 Oct 09, 2:19 PM
Souci_X
UK(BA), 5 yrs
|
Something this thread has made me think about. Every time there is a discussion on something like this, open mindedness, tolerance whatever its filled with a lot of posts saying about what people do. 'Some people this, some people that'
I actually think most if not all people can be guilty of flying off the handle sometimes, getting passionate and over involved I don't think it makes us bad people. I know I am not tolerant to lots of things.
I seem to say live and let live a lot, but I have very little tolerance for the way some people live, I will argue and get passionate if someone is bigoted, therefore I am not being tolerant of their opinions. I find it hard to detach from things like that.
Its not just 'noble' though, if I am in a bad mood, have had a bad day whatever I get cynical, I snipe I am sarcastic, but so is everyone else.
Yes it would be lovely if we could all get along but in itself that is an intolerant desire.
For some reason, this thread makes me think of this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvVS_564Wwk As twue as words spoken under interrogation.
Souci Selfless, After I have had a fag, Controversial X (too many middle names)
Edited 28 Oct 09, 2:20 PM by Souci_X
|
28 Oct 09, 2:36 PM
Backdooruk
UK(BA), 12 yrs
|
Souci_X wrote:
I will argue and get passionate if someone is bigoted, therefore I am not being tolerant of their opinions. |
What you are doing is the logical equivalent of dividing by zero:
Taking a stand against bigotry is an expression of being tolerant not of being intolerant. Taking a stand against intolerance can only be seen as intolerance in itself by (fallacious) self referential logic.
- Chris
Submission is giving someone the ability to destroy You, but trusting them enough not to.
|
28 Oct 09, 2:46 PM
Souci_X
UK(BA), 5 yrs
|
yeah not today
As twue as words spoken under interrogation.
Souci Selfless, After I have had a fag, Controversial X (too many middle names)
|
28 Oct 09, 2:59 PM
fussyone
9 yrs
|
subtlekiss wrote:
Not sure really ... its late and I will come back to this. I thought very similar myself a while ago and wrote a ranty blog post (since deleted) that contained a great deal more profanities that yours does, (not trying to compete) after seeing a quite innocent post quite off the subject of bdsm , shared by a person who didn't usually post on the boards absolutely shot down in flames by almost every single person who chose to post on that thread. It struck me as downright nasty behaviour and I wondered whether it was the fact that the poster was unknown rather than what was written that gave people the feeling of free reign. After my initial naivety that bdsm was a tolerant and utopian world of respect and free love I realised that this supposed alternative "community" was pretty much a reflection of the main one just with more erotic pictures on the side of their posts.
I guess it is also because this is the internet and those kind of attitudes exist across almost each and every internet board/group because when you sling lots of people from different backgrounds etc on a forum, give them a keyboard and anonymity, people can show the very worse side of their characters.(not that I have ever done that of course). Its a bit like free therapy. Equally (I know this is all very obvious) but unless very specifically written you cannot know the tone of the post and its very easy to misconstrue or misunderstand, one mans humour is another mans gauntlet. Or sommat. I must say Im guilty of reacting to nasty proddy posts .. but only in self defense. Usually.
Aside from all of the negative stuff , there are some really good discussions that really open things up and ask questions that strike cords with me and that I find really interesting and enlightening. Having said that , It's funny that the IC people who's opinions I respect and who make the most sense to me when we talk about bdsm subjects are people who never post on these boards at all. They have told me they don't post here for pretty much all of the reasons outlined in the OP. I think it may be fair to assume that some people don't post for those very reasons and that we are losing the potential balance and variety of opinions of lots of people on this site.
Oh and for how tolerant "we" are ... I like to think I am pretty tolerant , open minded and fair. Sometimes my reactions to things written here make me wonder about that. Physical things that aren't my bag, relationships I wouldn't have etc don't really affect me. My concept of emotionally abusive practices, manipulation, exploitation etc is VERY different to some others though and when it comes to those subjects I often find myself having to bite my hands.
Those are my thoughts at hazy 2.30 am anyway.
|
Nods, yeah there are lots of people here who will pick apart what you say - its rather pathetic really and a reflection on how sad their lives really are. Nothing better to do all day than look out for people to pick apart. There is an abundance of ego issues on this site for sure! It is easy to be drawn into defending your opinion, but, really not worth it. People don't like it if you don't go along with the following the flock ic protocol on matters! |
28 Oct 09, 4:24 PM
tanken
UK(NR), 2 yrs
|
Bohemond wrote:
redgerbil wrote:
alandra wrote:
If you disagree with them, that is fine, you are entitled to your own opinion. But you do not have the right to condemn them for their beliefs anymore than they have a right to condemn you for yours.
|
If someone doesn't have the 'right' to condemn another person for their beliefs then their freedom of expression is being curtailed because part of it is their condemnation of what they consider to be unacceptable.
For instance, we would not be able to condemn murderers, rapists, war criminals etc. for their beliefs.
To be tolerant you have to actually grapple with the logical contradiction that it involves which makes toleration an active principle and not a passive one.
|
Not sure this is right. There is a big difference between condemnation and disagreement. Society defines commonly accepted rules with which members of society are expected to comply, which are codified in law. Breaking of those laws (eg murder, theft etc) results in prescribed sanctions (sentences). The right to condemn and pass sentence is left with the legal process, which follows defined routes and requires objective assessemnt of the facts before an individual can be judged and condemned - all in a dispassionate, objective way. That is what freedom of speech and liberty is all about.
No system is perfect but that doesn't justify emotional reactions resulting in subjective judgement and condemnation. When individiuals or groups take the right to condemn into their own hands mob rule results. And then it's who is strongest and shouts loudest that prevails. That's not freedom of speech.
I may disagree profundly with what someone does or says and if I think their behaviour should be changed I should say so as loudly as I can and if necessary fight for the law to be changed or sanctions to be applied - but by the system.
Condemnnation puts people in prison, either literally or metaphorically, which is the responsibility of the state, not the individual. As individuals we don't have that right. We can by all means disagree strongly, vehemently etc, but should only do so from an equal footing, not as those who sit above others and judge. That's what tolerance means. Subjective judgement and condemnation based on what I think or feel damages people. Strong expression of an opinion should not cause damage because it recognises the other individual as an equal with their own rights and freedoms.
Phew gone on a bit, sorry.
|
I don't disagree with this in general although the regime we live under isn't as 'democratic' as you may think.
My main point is that toleration is a rather more active and practical thing than has so far been alluded to here. 
In other words we only have the level of toleration that we have today because of the struggle of previous generations and some of us in our younger days
"Red hair and black leather is my favourite colour scheme" - Richard Thompson
|
28 Oct 09, 4:31 PM
tanken
UK(NR), 2 yrs
|
Don't worry we all have bad days. I can be passionate about logic but when I am passionate in a sexual way I am not very logical
"Red hair and black leather is my favourite colour scheme" - Richard Thompson
|
28 Oct 09, 4:33 PM
tanken
UK(NR), 2 yrs
|
Backdooruk wrote:
Souci_X wrote:
I will argue and get passionate if someone is bigoted, therefore I am not being tolerant of their opinions. |
What you are doing is the logical equivalent of dividing by zero:
Taking a stand against bigotry is an expression of being tolerant not of being intolerant. Taking a stand against intolerance can only be seen as intolerance in itself by (fallacious) self referential logic.
- Chris
|
Is it not logical to think that if everything moves and changes then logic itself must move and change?
"Red hair and black leather is my favourite colour scheme" - Richard Thompson
|
28 Oct 09, 6:24 PM
CookieMonster
UK, 6 yrs
|
Tolerance is a 2 way street.
To many on here dont get it and IC has way to high a proportion of over sensetive, terratorial, narcassistic and petty people. Veritatis simplex oratio est.
Seneca, Roman Statesman Ca. 65 A.D.
The language of truth is simple.
Edited 28 Oct 09, 6:42 PM by CookieMonster
|
28 Oct 09, 6:56 PM
furry_catgirl
UK(CT), 3 yrs
|
AnEnglishMaster wrote:
I have to say I am amazed at how vitriolic some people get, when what is being discussed is merely a matter of opinion or personal taste.
|
personal taste is just that, PERSONAL taste.
And your business only. I respect any person's taste, as long as they keep it to themselves.
its when people try to rally others to thier tastes, and change / make events up to suit them, the problems can start.
And if your personal likes and dislikes, are politically incorrect, you simply dont need to tell the world about them.
we should all be tolerant of each other, and our differences.
freedom is another word,
for having nothing left to loose.
(joplin)
|
