Aggressive charity ads

[Jovis]

But Ronnie (and others) try to challenge the reasons behind your beliefs. I often find that when I question people about their opinions and why they believe things, they struggle and I cannot get answers. I'm accept people having differing beliefs (even if it frustrates me that they are different) but when they are ill-informed and put forward in a nasty way, then I become disgusted or angry.

I've said why I don't believe we should give international aid to Africa to make up for something we didn't do - because we're not responsible for the actions of those in the past.

Really, if you think I'm putting forward my beliefs in a nasty way then you're clearly stereotyping me with Daily Mail / BNP / Republicanism, which is.. oh yes, it's called prejudice!

Firstly there are other issues apart from this Africa one.

Secondly I didn't actually challenge your beliefs, I don't wish to at this stage. I was merely trying to explore why Ronnie et al might be doing so.

And thirdly, can you explain how that second paragraph makes sense logically? I don't quite understand.

[Chie]

Secondly I didn't actually challenge your beliefs, I don't wish to at this stage. I was merely trying to explore why Ronnie et al might be doing so.

We were taught that 1. people are entitled to their beliefs, and 2. respect the beliefs of others.

I don't think it's very respectful or tolerant to go around interrogating/confronting people about their beliefs.

And thirdly, can you explain how that second paragraph makes sense logically? I don't quite understand.

During this discussion I have been called a "daft fool", "ignorant", "racist", there's an implication that I want to "SENDEMHOME" despite never having said anything of the kind, a "silly arse"...

And I'm the one being tarred as nasty and unpleasant.

All of this Daily Mail stuff is stereotyping.

I don't wish to continue participating in this discussion.

[Gavin Scott]

Chie, you haven't been called a "silly arse" since we had the unpleasantness with Ray Allan and Lord Charles, and I banned the pair of them.

You silly arse.

[Ronnie Rowlands]

We were taught that 1. people are entitled to their beliefs, and 2. respect the beliefs of others.

Course you're entitled to your beliefs, but other people are entitled to pull you up on them when they think you're wrong.

I don't think it's very respectful or tolerant to go around interrogating/confronting people about their beliefs.

So people shouldn't have their beliefs challenged?

[Chie]

Just to clarify:

Course you're entitled to your beliefs, but other people are entitled to pull you up on them when they think you're wrong.

I believe we shouldn't be in the EU.

I believe we should cut back international aid until we have a budget surplus.

Other than the fact you don't agree with my beliefs, what makes them 'wrong'?

I really hope you aren't going to suggest my beliefs are invalid until I've justified them to your satisfaction. That would be terrible.

So people shouldn't have their beliefs challenged?

You may put forward an alternative viewpoint.

Attempting to coerce those whose beliefs you disagree with into submission using negative stereotypes and/or disapproving calumnies such as 'ignorant', 'daft' and 'silly' in order to paint them as lesser beings, less intelligent, heretics or outcasts because of their beliefs is unacceptable.

[Gavin Scott]

Attempting to coerce those whose beliefs you disagree with into submission using negative stereotypes and/or disapproving calumnies such as 'ignorant', 'daft' and 'silly' in order to paint them as lesser beings, less intelligent, heretics or outcasts because of their beliefs is unacceptable.

Well that's tommy rot, to coin a phrase.

Some people believe that women are without value, that homosexuals are all paedophiles, that its ok to absue children or take lives.

These people are "lesser beings", and no amount of them mewling about their right to hold a different opinion changes that.

I'm not suggesting you hold any of these views, but to say, "everyone can think what they like and it doesn't make them bad or wrong" is simply horseshit.

[Chie]

Attempting to coerce those whose beliefs you disagree with into submission using negative stereotypes and/or disapproving calumnies such as 'ignorant', 'daft' and 'silly' in order to paint them as lesser beings, less intelligent, heretics or outcasts because of their beliefs is unacceptable.

Well that's tommy rot, to coin a phrase.

Some people believe that women are without value, that homosexuals are all paedophiles, that its ok to absue children or take lives.

These people are "lesser beings", and no amount of them mewling about their right to hold a different opinion changes that.

I'm not suggesting you hold any of these views, but to say, "everyone can think what they like and it doesn't make them bad or wrong" is simply horseshit.

Caveat: except where those beliefs may infringe upon the rights (as specified in law) and/or jeopardise the well-being of others.

But now they're going to say I'm jeopardising the well-being of Africans by denying them international aid!

I'm not playing no more.

[Pete]

Can we start this discussion again because it had the chance of being mildly interesting but was just a total crock of shit.

[Sput]

I've mulled this over so as not to be too rude about it, Grindon:
I can't see how the posts in the hours leading up to that post are a problem unless you simply dislike having your views challenged. It's vigorous, no doubt, and yes it undoubtedly gets a bit rude (I'm no angel in that department) but it's also substantive. This brings me to my point: if it's SUCH pain to have to defend your position on substantive terms then maybe that's because it's not a rational position in the first place. If it's just not worth the effort to even enter into a discussion about why you feel a certain way about things (and I'm that way plenty of the time) then mentioning it at all on a discussion forum is an error.

[Jake]

I also tend to stay out of these discussions, not because I have particularly offensive views, just that I struggle to articulate myself.

[all new Phil]

I think that a common problem, not just here but elsewhere in life, is that those with the points of view most commonly associated with the 'left' of the political spectrum - your Green Party, and more extreme Labour Party supporters - are those who have the monopoly on opinion. Those who oppose these views, on issues such as charity, and also things like the environment and immigration, tend to face a barrage of abuse, purely for the perfectly valid viewpoints that they have.

Not that I particularly want to be sticking up for Chie here, but I think some posters here could do with accepting that all beliefs are valid, and no one person's opinions are a definitive set of what is correct. I completely accept Gavin's point about 'extreme' views, but at the same time on things such as immigration and foreign aid, it is perfectly acceptable to have views either way. I just wish people would remember that.