Hypocrisy of The Left - part 2

[Barry_Badrinath]

This thread got very long, so it has moved on to part 3.

From Part 1: https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/hypocrisy-of-the-left.1079388/

Continued in Part 3: https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/hypocrisy-of-the-left-part-3.1204489/



-Homophobia is terrible
-Islamophobia is terrible




Survey finds half of British Muslims want gay sex outlawed and one in three believe a man should have more than one wife

HALF of British Muslims believe homosexuality should be illegal - and one in three believe a man should have more than one wife, according to a new survey.

The findings of an ICM poll will be presented in an explosive Channel 4 documentary, What British Muslims Really Think, on Wednesday.

The programme looks at the difference in opinion between the three million Muslims living in the UK and the rest of the population on key issues such as marriage, education, freedom of speech and even violence in the defence of religion

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...xplosive-new-documentary-explores-issues.html

How can the same people who claim to be passionate about standing up for homosexuals so willingly support people of an ideology who despise homosexuals? It makes no sense.

 

[CM86]

-Homophobia is terrible
-Islamophobia is terrible




Survey finds half of British Muslims want gay sex outlawed and one in three believe a man should have more than one wife
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...xplosive-new-documentary-explores-issues.html

How can the same people who claim to be passionate about standing up for homosexuals so willingly support people of an ideology who despise homosexuals? It makes no sense.

I don't support Islam.

I'm against discrimination...
Discriminating against an entire people, is what I am against...
So, if you try to lump all Muslims together, I consider that discrimination, and will try to dissuade you from holding that view.


**** Islam, **** discrimination.
No hypocrisy.

Why are there so many threads on "the left" right now?

 

[Pessimistic]

-Homophobia is terrible
-Islamophobia is terrible




Survey finds half of British Muslims want gay sex outlawed and one in three believe a man should have more than one wife
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...xplosive-new-documentary-explores-issues.html

How can the same people who claim to be passionate about standing up for homosexuals so willingly support people of an ideology who despise homosexuals? It makes no sense.

Turn it back on you. explain the hate. Its illogical

Half the stuff about Islam has been going on for decades in our jewish community

What really makes me passionate is politician dog whistling instead of just doing their job

 

[telsor]

Why are there so many threads on "the left" right now?

Probably something to do with them dominating debate and trying to shut out alternative opinions.

 

[CM86]

Probably something to do with them dominating debate and trying to shut out alternative opinions.

This is endemic is obvious in bigfooty?

"The left" are shutting out alternative opinions?

 

[Windhover]

-Homophobia is terrible
-Islamophobia is terrible




Survey finds half of British Muslims want gay sex outlawed and one in three believe a man should have more than one wife
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...xplosive-new-documentary-explores-issues.html

How can the same people who claim to be passionate about standing up for homosexuals so willingly support people of an ideology who despise homosexuals? It makes no sense.

Good question. The key to understanding why it is a consistent position is "tolerance". The reason I passionately support the right of homosexuals to equality is because IMO everyone is entitled to live their life as they wish, without interference from others who are in no legitimate way harmed by how they choose to live.

But if I accept that I should "tolerate" homosexuality because it does not legitimately interfere with others, if I were to be consistent I should adopt the same tolerant approach to those who honestly believe that our society would be improved if gay sex was made illegal. In other words people are entitled to "want gay sex outlawed" and entitled to campaign for it. I hope they do not succeed but, in the words attributed to Voltaire: "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

Or, if you prefer the Christian(Moslem) approach (and known more generally as the Golden Rule), do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Since I would hope that those who accept the teachings of Islam would accept my entitlement to disbelieve (whether or not they do), likewise should I accept that those who do accept some particular version of those teachings be entitled to honestly believe and advocate for gay sex to be outlawed.

 

[medusala]

Good question. The key to understanding why it is a consistent position is "tolerance". The reason I passionately support the right of homosexuals to equality is because IMO everyone is entitled to live their life as they wish, without interference from others who are in no legitimate way harmed by how they choose to live.

Right so by that logic I should be able to bargain with an employee/employer without state interference. I should be able to ride a bike without a helmet, I should be able to not wear a seat belt. I should be able to express an opinion that offends someone without worrying about some falling foul of some absurd legislation given no one can sensibly argument being offended equates to legitimate harm.

 

[Barry_Badrinath]

Good question. The key to understanding why it is a consistent position is "tolerance". The reason I passionately support the right of homosexuals to equality is because IMO everyone is entitled to live their life as they wish, without interference from others who are in no legitimate way harmed by how they choose to live.

But if I accept that I should "tolerate" homosexuality because it does not legitimately interfere with others, if I were to be consistent I should adopt the same tolerant approach to those who honestly believe that our society would be improved if gay sex was made illegal. In other words people are entitled to "want gay sex outlawed" and entitled to campaign for it. I hope they do not succeed but, in the words attributed to Voltaire: "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

Or, if you prefer the Christian(Moslem) approach (and known more generally as the Golden Rule), do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Since I would hope that those who accept the teachings of Islam would accept my entitlement to disbelieve (whether or not they do), likewise should I accept that those who do accept some particular version of those teachings be entitled to honestly believe and advocate for gay sex to be outlawed.

That's the thing though, banning gay sex does "legitimately interfere" with others. And here you are tolerating this belief. Why? Is it because it is unlikely to happen? Are you willing to tolerate abhorrent beliefs simply because the people that hold them don't have the power to enforce them? Would your tolerance of this opinion change if the majority held this view?

 

[Mningasimisonda]

Why are there so many threads on "the left" right now?

The right need votes from the average man, so they have sent their best evangelists to footy forums.

 

[Swans FC]

-Homophobia is terrible
-Islamophobia is terrible




Survey finds half of British Muslims want gay sex outlawed and one in three believe a man should have more than one wife
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...xplosive-new-documentary-explores-issues.html

How can the same people who claim to be passionate about standing up for homosexuals so willingly support people of an ideology who despise homosexuals? It makes no sense.

Over half? Bloody hell, that's more than I thought. And leftists still have the audacity to cry racist at anyone who dares to speak out against Islamic beliefs. ****ing disgusting.

 

[Indeed]

Muslims v Leftists is coming, oh boy it will be sweet.

 

[Indeed]

I don't support Islam.

I'm against discrimination...
Discriminating against an entire people, is what I am against...
So, if you try to lump all Muslims together, I consider that discrimination, and will try to dissuade you from holding that view.


**** Islam, **** discrimination.
No hypocrisy.

Why are there so many threads on "the left" right now?

Yawn you view any attack on Islam as an attack on Muslims, get out of here.

 

[Barry_Badrinath]

Muslims v Leftists is coming, oh boy it will be sweet.

I doubt it. In their minds racism still outranks everything else on the oppression ladder. Islam has nothing to do with race, but that won't stop leftists from equating it with Arabs, and telling everybody else that they do the same (even though most Muslims I've met have been Malaysian).

Racism still outranks sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc and will always win out if they have to choose.

 

[Windhover]

That's the thing though, banning gay sex does "legitimately interfere" with others. And here you are tolerating this belief. Why? Is it because it is unlikely to happen? Are you willing to tolerate abhorrent beliefs simply because the people that hold them don't have the power to enforce them? Would your tolerance of this opinion change if the majority held this view?

I agree with you that actually banning gay sex unfairly interferes with rights and aspirations. I do not support such laws.

What I tolerate is the right of others to openly disagree with me. That is why I said "In other words people are entitled to "want gay sex outlawed" and entitled to campaign for it."

There was a time (most of our history) in Australia when homosexual activity was illegal. A majority of people for a majority of our nationhood have wanted "gay sex" outlawed and have, wrongly IMO, imposed their will on the Law. I think I tolerated their opinion whilst rejecting it. Fortunately a majority of those same people, while condemning homosexuality, agreed people like me, were entitled to advocate for those laws to be abolished. Which, in the main, they have been.

It would be the height of hypocrisy to argue that people who condemn homosexuality, but tolerate free speech sufficient to permit the law to change, should now be prevented from even advocating for a cause they believe in (for whatever reasons).

Worse than that it is antithetical to a functioning democracy. For those frightened that "free speech" will somehow give rise to pernicious laws IMO the historical evidence is against them. The more people have the right to freely advocate for even ridiculous causes (which I regard interfering with the harmless expression of the sexuality of others is) the more likely in the "open market of ideas" those ideas are seen for their real worth. In the market of ideas the best way to establish bad ideas is to regulate/control it. If an idea is essentially ridiculous it will, sooner or later, be seen for what it is. It will just take longer if people are not free to point out its faults.

 

[Pessimistic]

Right wing politicians push through right wing laws they have had on the back burner, on the pretext of threats from other right wing nutters, when libertarians object, they are labeled mussy lovers and myscogenist.

What are the 'protecting' us from: that the other bunch might come in and replace our right wing laws with theirs?

 

[CM86]

Yawn you view any attack on Islam as an attack on Muslims, get out of here.

Having had no luck with 'beef hooked' or 'benny78', out pops 'Indeed'.


I'll repeat what I said in the post you just quoted... **** Islam...


These bullshit artists calling out hypocrisy, are either playing dumb or are genuinely stupid.
I think Islam is probably the worst religion.
But I am against people who claim they aren't racist.... but want to ban immigration from certain countries or certain ethnicities.

People who say we 'need' to close our boarders, but don't even think about blocking Westerners from entering this country.


I mean, look at the stats Barry posted... under half the people who follow a religion condoning homosexuality, means that they are radicalised and dangerous.
What percentage of British Catholics support homosexuality?


And finally, I don't support their view... if they tried to make being homosexual illegal, they would be destroyed...


Why aren't the anti-Muslim posters in the 'Gay marriage' thread? Arguing against some of the homophobic shit posted in there?

 

[Barry_Badrinath]

Having had no luck with 'beef hooked' or 'benny78', out pops 'Indeed'.


I'll repeat what I said in the post you just quoted... **** Islam...


These bullshit artists calling out hypocrisy, are either playing dumb or are genuinely stupid.
I think Islam is probably the worst religion.
But I am against people who claim they aren't racist.... but want to ban immigration from certain countries or certain ethnicities.

People who say we 'need' to close our boarders, but don't even think about blocking Westerners from entering this country.

I mean, look at the stats Barry posted... under half the people who follow a religion condoning homosexuality, means that they are radicalised and dangerous.
What percentage of British Catholics support homosexuality?

Yep. Those people are bigots, and they often get called bigots.

And finally, I don't support their view... if they tried to make being homosexual illegal, they would be destroyed...


Why aren't the anti-Muslim posters in the 'Gay marriage' thread? Arguing against some of the homophobic shit posted in there?

They don't need to post in those threads. When the homophobic Christians/atheists tee off against gays, people such as yourself are very quick to point them out as bigots. When Muslims do it there is silence and deflections. They're just picking up the slack and calling out homophobic Muslims as the bigots that they are (no, not all Muslims, just the majority).

 

[CM86]

Yep. Those people are bigots, and they often get called bigots.



They don't need to post in those threads. When the homophobic Christians/atheists tee off against gays people such as yourself are very quick to point them out as bigots. When Muslims do it there is silence and deflections. They're just picking up the slack and calling out homophobic Muslims as the bigots that they are (no, not all Muslims, just the majority).

Bullshit.
Show me where a poster has identified as a Muslim, and made a homophobic comment on bigfooty, that has been ignored or deflected.



Homophobes are bigots... regardless of their religion or ethnicity.

"No not all Muslims, just the majority"?? What?

 

[My name geoff]

Islam needs to be criticized in the same way any fascist ideology has been in the past.
Practicing Muslims should not be exempt from criticism as their views are offensive to many people.

 

[Barry_Badrinath]

Bullshit.
Show me where a poster has identified as a Muslim, and made a homophobic comment on bigfooty, that has been ignored or deflected.



Homophobes are bigots... regardless of their religion or ethnicity.

"No not all Muslims, just the majority"?? What?

52% of British Muslims think homosexuality should be illegal. That is a majority. And that's just the ones that think it should be illegal, it doesn't include the ones who hate gays but don't want to enforce their will.

You can live in denial if you want, or you accept that the religion of peace isn't quite as tolerant as you think.

 

[CM86]

52% of British Muslims think homosexuality should be illegal. That is a majority. And that's just the ones that think it should be illegal, it doesn't include the ones who hate gays but don't want to enforce their will.

You can live in denial if you want, or you accept that the religion of peace isn't quite as tolerant as you think.

I thought it was 48% who thought that. I misread.

Of course, you adding "it doesn't include the ones who hate gays but don't want to enforce their will" shows that you only rely on this single survey to a point... and use your imagination for the rest.

What am I in denial of?

Did you have any luck finding what I asked?

"Show me where a poster has identified as a Muslim, and made a homophobic comment on bigfooty, that has been ignored or deflected."​

No luck? Not surprised.
It's a strawman argument. Trying to say that 'the left' support Islamic bigotry.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

As stated by those above, there is little surprise that a conservative religion has more proponents of socially conservative views than elsewhere. Most refugees, whether Christian, Islam or otherwise, are strong followers of that religion. After all, if you weren't a strong follower you would just stop practicing the religion that is getting you persecuted. The Dalai Lama is anti-homosexuality, although on occasion he emphasises 'individual choice' and not being harmful, rather than 'tradition' and sex being 'for procreation'.

The defence of Islam is done on the basis that a lot of things said about them by right-wingers (who are often racists) are just wrong. It is also unfair to paint a whole group due to the actions of a minority. Generalisations like that were obviously a key part of the Nazis' path of horror.

When it comes to debates over immigration the people who are very anti-Islam tend to be social conservatives themselves very keen to maintain power for their socially conservative (and often racist) ideas, so there is no reason for 'the left' to support their positions as if that will help stop socially conservative views. You'll all be shocked to hear, no doubt, that preaching tolerance and understanding about people different to you is a central tenant of progressive thinking and consequently treating Muslims with respect is on par with that.

But, hey, if you want to talk about hypocrisy - then why don't right-wingers love Muslims since they share so many socially conservative views with them? Is it just the fact that they wear different clothes? Is 'the right' very fashion-conscious? If 'they hate our freedoms' then do all those against homosexuality 'hate our freedoms'?

This is the 'social conservatism' section of the survey referred to, in order of disagreeance. They didn't canvass divorce or abortion (although did include a question about wearing the niqab which I removed because that has nothing to do with 'social conservatism'):

Should Gay marriage be legal? Disagree 56% Agree 16% Neutral 20% Dunno 8%
Should Homosexuality be legal? Disagree 52% Agree 18% Neutral 22% Dunno 8%
Acceptable for a homosexual to be a school teacher? Disagree 47% Agree 28% Neutral 18% Dunno 7%
Britain is a country of bad moral behaviour? Disagree 47% Agree 28% Neutral 21% Dunno 4%
Acceptable for a British Muslim to have more than 1 wife? Disagree 46% Agree 31% Neutral 19% Dunno 4%
Girls and boys should be taught separately: Disagree 46% Agree 33% Neutral 18% Dunno 2%
Wives should always obey their husbands? Disagree 32% Agree 39% Neutral 25% Dunno 3%
British society treats women with respect: Disagree 11% Agree 77% Neutral 11% Dunno 1%

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

if you want to talk about hypocrisy - then why don't right-wingers love Muslims since they share so many socially conservative views with them? Is it just the fact that they wear different clothes? Is 'the right' very fashion-conscious? If 'they hate our freedoms' then do all those against homosexuality 'hate our freedoms'?

This is the 'social conservatism' section of the survey referred to, in order of disagreeance...

Cripes. They also fit in a whole section about Judaism which just batters them with questions about Jews and Power and being different... This might sound crazy but do you think producers of a documentary called 'What do Muslims Really Think?' maybe didn't have the best intentions when surveying?

1st they asked Muslims to rate different people of religion by how much they feel 'warm' about them. 0-100, with 100 being best (control group in brackets) - and yes the stats showed that Muslims thought more highly of Jews than the general population thought of Muslims:
Muslims 86 (55) Catholics 70 (65) Protestants 70 (68) Hindus 66 (62) Buddhists 64 (65) Non-religious 61 (69) Jewish 57 (64)

Is anti-Semitism a problem? Disagree 20% Agree 35% Neutral 16% Dunno 29%
Are Jews too powerful in government? Disagree 22% Agree 31% Neutral 16% Dunno 31%
Are Jews too powerful in media? Disagree 17% Agree 39% Neutral 15% Dunno 29%
Are Jews too powerful in business? Disagree 14% Agree 44% Neutral 14% Dunno 28%
Are Jews too powerful in finance? Disagree 14% Agree 40% Neutral 16% Dunno 30%
Are Jews too powerful in global affairs? Disagree 16% Agree 38% Neutral 14% Dunno 31%
Are Jews more loyal to Israel than Britain? Disagree 12% Agree 42% Neutral 15% Dunno 31%
Do Jews only care about themselves? Disagree 21% Agree 34% Neutral 16% Dunno 29%
Do Jews think they are better than other people? Disagree 23% Agree 30% Neutral 18% Dunno 29%
Do Jews "still talk too much" about Holocaust? Disagree 17% Agree 34% Neutral 16% Dunno 33%
Are Jews are responsible for most of the world's wars? Disagree 25% Agree 26% Neutral 17% Dunno 32%
Do "People hate Jews because of the way Jews behave"? Disagree 22% Agree 27% Neutral 19% Dunno 32%

 

[coerced]

The hypocrisy of conservatives can be summed up in their defence of family values while pursuing economic policies that do more to undermine the security of families than any thing else - more than drugs, gay rights, multiculturalism etc. The modern left react to that by pushing hard on those narrow social issues, meaning the political debate is defined by things utterly meaningless to the wellbeing of majority, but gives a superficial appearance of difference.

 

[Windhover]

Right so by that logic I should be able to bargain with an employee/employer without state interference.

Sorry but I do not see how you think the logic works (and needless to say, you do not explain it). To mount a "logical argument" (generously assuming you had the capacity) you would need to show how employer/employee bargaining does not cause interference with (in no legitimate way harms the interests of) others.

Please correct me if I am wrong but there is a very significant history of disputes between employees and employers dating back well before even the Tollpuddle martyrs. These disputes have had all sorts of unpleasant effects on others, not least deliberately targetted secondary boycott effects that, I don't know . . . just guessing, you would be in favour of regulation/prohibition by the State.

But anyways, that is your task if you want to be, um logickal.

I should be able to ride a bike without a helmet,

In your instance I entirely agree. Often. And on very busy roads.
In other instances, once we as a community accept that one of the prices of having a transport system that permits humans encased in large pieces of metal to whizz past each other at speeds of up to 200 kmphr separated by less than a metres of bitumen, a painted white line (and air) is that we have a no fault medical expenses scheme to insure against the inevitable accidents (which, in most (all) developed countries is the case), then the community ("the State") has a very real interest in how individuals protect themselves from injury.

I should be able to not wear a seat belt.

ditto

I should be able to express an opinion that offends someone without worrying about some falling foul of some absurd legislation given no one can sensibly argument being offended equates to legitimate harm.

You should, and and as far as I am concerned, in Australia you are.
Peeps (like Freedom Boy) who prattle on about s.18C of the Racial Discrimination Act being an unfair restriction on freedom of speech are missing the point. IT DOES NOT restrict freedom of speech, it enhances it.

The sentinel case is Eatock v Bolt. Bolt lost the case and was found to have breached s.18C. In particular it was found

• It was reasonably likely that fair-skinned Aboriginal people (or some of them) were offended, insulted, humiliated or intimidated by the conduct; and
• That the conduct was done by Mr Bolt and the Herald &Weekly Times, including because of the race, colour or ethnic origin of fair-skinned Aboriginal people.

Now you (and Freedom Boy) might say "There you are. Poor ole Andy has fallen foul of legislation because Eatock (among others) was offended by his miserable opinion." Case shut.

You are quite wrong. Look at what happened to poor ole Andy and his miserable article.

Was Andy made to apologise for the article? No.

Was the Herald Scum required to remove the article from its website? No. Although a "corrective notice" was required to be published. And the reprehensible article was not permitted to be republished in print.

Did Andy have to pay damages? No, not one penny.

And, before you waffle on about "costs penalty" had he immediately fully admitted he was in breach of the Act (as was found) there would have been piddling costs to pay. So the costs (no doubt paid by the Scum) were an own goal.

But you ask "How does s.18C enhance freedom of speech?"

It's like this. We all accept that "freedom of speech" has limits. With all freedom comes responsibility. Generally, the freedom of speech is limited by defamation law. Defamation law is designed to protect people's legitimate interest in their reputation. It has long been recognised that our reputations can (and are) monetised (though Trumps claim as to the dollar worth of his name might be, like everything else about him, a little excessive) and defamation law gives us an avenue to recover the monetised loss from the damage to our reputation by unkind and untrue remarks.

Now, having read Bolta's article (I haven't actually), I would like to exercise my freedom of speech and call Andy a racist. I suspect Andy would find my remark "offensive" and damaging of his reputation. He might sue me and I am in danger of having to pay him money (enforced by the State) for the damage to his reputation just because I exercised my freedom of speech.

Not any more. Now I have a judgment in Eatock v Bolt that makes it plain Andy offended, insulted, humiliated or intimidated people by his article, at least in part because of those people's race, colour or ethnicity as Aboriginal people. Which amply meets the definition of "racist" in my book.

So we are now all free to call Bolt a racist on the strength of Eatock v Bolt without fear of having our freedom of speech being interfered with by the State enforcing an order for damages. And, let's face it, it is the fear of Bolt and his fellow travellers of being correctly labelled "racists" more than any other consequence mandated by s.18C that has them upset. They are afraid of free speech. Not advocates for it.

Isn't s.18C great.