Is it hypocritical for someone to say they're bi-sexual, but they're always dating the same sex?

if anyone wants to know what this thread is really about... it's a smartass reaction to this http://www.prince.org/msg...&tid=50143

MrBliss said:

I thought I handled this one pretty well! Shhhuuuddding up now!

MrBliss said:

It is not a reaction to it at all... much like many threads that are spawned from ideas that come up in other threads, this one was inspired by an idea that I had in another discussion that merited its own thread in order not to take the other thread off course.

ice have you ever been to lubbock -texas?

Christopher said:

I can't recall ever having been there... why?

Re: Isn't being intolerant of what you perceive as intolerance being intolerant in and of itself and therefore hypocritical?

IceNine said:

nah friend of mine she lives in one of those small texas towns like midland/odessa type of town...

i had never heard of it but appearently i seen on tv it had the highest STD rate in the country lol

MrBliss said:

I had no idea that one had taken off so.
This might be one of the only times I have seen you serious,
MrBliss. I congratulate you on your thread.

Additional thought:
Based on the discussion here, I conclude that those who would not
tolerate believers because in your opinion Christians are intolerant
are indeed hypocrits... as per your own admission.

Christopher said:

Maybe everyone fucked the same girl at the same time... that is possible in a very small town.

Janfriend said:

Ha ha ha ha...ALWAYS is a long long time.

AaronSuperior said:

I admire your patience, cuz it's my understanding that the units that looked for WMD left Iraq.

wellbeyond said:

I disagree... In fact, intolerant groups are often masters at coating their prejudice with a veneer of respectability. Whether you're thinking about racism, ablism, agism or any other form of discrimination, intolerant groups have expressed their opposition to other people's rights in an apparently logical and objective way. Remember that the Nazis tried to make anti-semitism into a sort of science, "proving" that jews are this and that.

My view is that intolerance toward certain groups exist. If you allow it to thrive in the name of not being "intolerant" yourself, you allow prejudice to grow. If such intolerance doesn't affect the rights of others, then it's simply offensive and you are free to counter the rethoric in the name of stopping the spread of hate. However, if it does start affecting certain people's rights, then society should defend itself from it before it becomes institutionalized. History is full of that, whether you are talking about the repression of protestantism in France (St. Bartholemew Massacre, for instance) or the holocaust, it's clear that it's unfair to characterize DEFENSE as intolerance of an intolerance of hateful groups is an excessively literal use of the word "intolerance". Sure, groups who fought back were "intolerant" of anti-semitism , for instance, but it's not the same kind of narrow-minded rejection of otherness we have come to associate with the general, social notion of "intolerance".

I am intolerant of Aerogram's rhetoric!

Aerogram said:

Nothing you said, tho, contradicts what I said...which was we were talking about intolerance towards people's views, and you gave an example of an opinion coupled with a behavior...It's not about whether or not the views are prejudice or bigoted...or whether or not they're presented in logical ways or with a veneer of respectability...it's whether or not you're being hypocritical if you champion tolerance while showing intolerance towards another person's views, opinions or philosophy on life...or to use your example, once Hitler's views became coupled with behavior, THEN it becomes possible to show intolerance towards what's occuring without it being hypocritical.


And, again, that's exactly what I said...when the view is accompanied with behavior, it leaves the realm of simple intolerance over someone else's views...thus it's no longer under the umbrella of hypocrisy. Until there's a behavior to "defend" against, it most definitely falls under the definition of intolerance...you can't defend yourself against an opinion alone.

SensualMelody said:

LOL. I was just asking since we were talking about being hypocritical. I know someone like that

AaronSuperior said:

++

believe it or not, i actually do believe that the essence of the conflict in iraq is very related to the concept of intolerance toward intolerance. i take it you do not see it that way and i am fully ready to allow you your views because i totally believe that two intelligent people can view the same situation and come to differing conclusions.

i believe that we as a nation viewed saddam as intolerant towards a) international law (i.e. un resolutions, etc.), b) our (the u.s.'s) interests both internationally, regionally, and at home, c) his own people (the kurds, dissidents, others he has tortured, murdered, etc.), d) isreal.

medoc2003 said:

I am intolerant of your Iraqi war theory.

wellbeyond said:

First time I forgot to contradict you, for sure.


Let me restate : I don't think that there's much of a difference between saying "Disabled people are of little use to society" and "You're just a cripple. Or "Blacks are lazy and oversexed." and "You're just a n***". All these statements reek of prejudice. I don't believe one to be a "view" and the other to be an "insult". They're both insulting, except one is blunter than the other..

Now the difference between holding views and actually acting on those views is crucial, but as soon as you express them, they become in effect an action, a behavior. Communicating and disseminating are actions and behaviors. Even if they don't translate into, say, violence against a minority perpetrated by the person holding and expressing these views, the message itself can influence the behavior of others who are exposed to it. That's called "incitation".

Obviously, Hitler didn't start his reign of terror by forming concentration camps. He used communication, speeches... to disseminate his views, or more accurately to exploit prejudice that was already there. Action followed. I don't think you could seriously characterize someone who forcefully opposed nazism as "intolerant" in the way this word is used in modern media. The opposition is a reaction to clearly intolerant and hateful views and/or behavior. If you want to use the flattest sense of the word, you can say that someone who was anti-nazi was "intolerant", but then you lose the richer meanings of the term (a and b, in favor of c) :

Not tolerant, especially:
a- Unwilling to tolerate differences in opinions, practices, or beliefs, especially religious beliefs.
B- Opposed to the inclusion or participation of those different from oneself, especially those of a different racial, ethnic, or social background.
C-Unable or unwilling to endure or support: intolerant of interruptions; a community intolerant of crime.

I have become intolerant of Aerogram.

IceNine said:

That's ok. Lots of people suffer from aero-intolerance. I hear Pfitzzer is coming out with a pill.

Thanks for being so cool and so right, Aerogram!

Aerogram said:

I am intolerant of Pfitzzer.

IceNine said:

Good thing you don't share a condition with Bob Dole.

AnotherLoverToo said:

Why.. thank you!

Aerogram said:

Truly, your reasoning mirrors my own. And it's why I am a social worker--always ready to 'fight the power' and/or be the person who points out that the emperor is wearing no clothes, lol...

Aerogram said:

Goes a little deeper than simply one being more blunt...one is said as an expression of a viewpoint, with no other motive behind it...the other is most definitely accompanied with a motive, an intent to emotionally "attack"...we can't say that because we were "hurt" by something someone said, that it automatically means they meant to hurt us.


The "behavior" is the act of expelling air thru your throat in order to make sounds, nothing more...there is no behavior accompanied with the words themselves...in other words, you're not acting on the views you're expressing. There's where the difference is...


Nope...people's behaviors (in this case, anyway) are only influenced by internal factors...how people react to what they hear is not caused by what they hear...not to mention that you still need to consider into the equation if there's motive behind the words being spoken: if the words are indeed being said to incite, then it's now an action...if it's being said simply to voice an opinion, it's not...it's the difference between being asked what your views on race relations are during an interview, and renting out a hall to give a speech on the subject...


And had no action whatsoever followed, then what??...Would there still be a valid reason for fearing Hitler's views??...That's the rub behind intolerance, the fear that mere views are dangerous, and must be stopped, whether they are connected to actions or not...if the thinking goes "prejudice and racist views are, in and of themselves, dangerous", then yep, we're intolerant...


Again, you say opposed nazism...nazism is an action, a behavior, a movement with specific goals...it's not simply an opinion...so you'd be right in saying that wouldn't lable it as intolerant, because the opposition wouldn't be against mere opinion.


Again, you support what I say..it's against behavior...anyone who feels we need to be intolerant towards people's opinions only damn sure does fall under the definition of intolerant...


I think you're missing the point, Aero, in favor of trying to champion the good behind being intolerant towards certain things...I suppose you probably feel it's unfair to lable something you see as a good with such a negative lable...

A: You're not tolerant if you're "unwilling to tolerate differences of opinions"...I'd say if you're unwilling to tolerate differences of opinions concerning race, you fall under this definition of "not tolerant"...

B: You're not tolerant if you "oppose the inclusion or participation of those different from oneself"...I'd say that if you're in favor of banning anyone from anything due solely to their opinions on racial matters differs greatly from your own, then you'd fall under this definition of "not tolerant" as well...

As for C, it lists two--once again, kids--two behaviors, interruptions and crime...neither of those two things are opinions or views...

There's a scene from the old movie "Twilight Zone", with
Vic Morrow...he's a bigoted, hateful racist, and he's in a bar talking to some friends or coworkers, whatever...some black guys sit down at a nearby table, and you can see that Vic is obviously repulsed...so Vic starts speaking in a louder tone of voice, expressing his views about blacks and the races and what-not, using insulting and vulgar wording to express his opinions...and doing so in a deliberately loud way for the sole purpose of making sure the blacks at the nearby table heard his racist remarks...

Well, one of the black guys figures he's had enough...gets up, walks over to the table...leans down, and tells one of Vic's friends "Listen...I don't care if your friend is racist or not...just tell him to keep it down and keep it to himself."...

That right there, to me, is the line between tolerance and intolerance...that "black guy" saw the thin line between the two and respected it...he basically said, if he overhears someone saying this shit, he'll tolerated it and ignore it...it's only an opinion, afterall...but...if it goes from mere opinion to an act of purposeful attempts to belittle and injure another, it no longer is contained to opinion only, and is deserving of being responded to...

Which is my point.




...
[This message was edited Thu May 29 22:04:56 PDT 2003 by wellbeyond]

One last thing before I go to bed (or attempt to, anyway...lol)...

You said: "...as soon as you express (your opinions), they become in effect an action, a behavior."...and that the person who says "People in wheelchairs don't contribute much to society" and the person who says "You're nothing but a worthless cripple!!" are, in effect, both doing the same thing...so if we can react towards one without being intolerant, we can react towards both without being intolerant.

Think about this, tho...when we are "intolerant" towards someone who says people in wheelchairs are of little value in society, what is the behavior we're being intolerant towards?...The only behavior they're engaging in is the expression of personal opinion. So if we're intolerant towards this person, we're saying we're intolerant towards the act of expressing opinions. This, to me, is intolerance defined...We're not being intolerant towards the opinion itself, since we're saying that if they had kept the opinion to themselves, we'd be fine with that...

However, when we are "intolerant" towards someone who tells another person that they're a worthless cripple, what is the behavior we're being intolerant towards?...This person is not only engaging in the expression of personal opinion...they are also engaging in the act of verbal abuse...they are using their words as weapons, not just to illuminate a viewpoint...So if we're intolerant towards this person, we're saying we're intolerant towards the act of verbal abuse. This, to me, is not intolerance (not the type this thread speaks of anyway)...We're not being intolerant towards the expression of the opinion, or of the opinion itself...we're being intolerant towards abuse..

Projection.

When a person sees in another person, qualities of him/herself which are disowned and 'projected' onto the other, in an attempt to not experience parts of self which are unpleasant or uncomfortable.

Oh and what if the person being intolerant of intolerance realises their behaviour and is ok with themselves being a hypocrite?

Really, it is about what is acceptable to ourselves and I think that a person who deals with what they intolerate in themselves, when faced with a person who intolerates others, will be less likely to have a reaction to the intolerance in others, than the person who does not deal with their own intolerance within themselves.