danot Posted December 30, 2010 Share Posted December 30, 2010 it the hypothetical group proposed everyone agrees. the reason i made everyone agree was to see if talking in agreement without affecting anyone with a different view should be classed as bigoted. the group might say it's wrong for society or just them, doesn't really matter. if they say that, and agree, but takes no action beyond talking again on their next meeting is it still bigotry? in a group where one is gay, and the group says it's wrong but don't ostracize the one I'm not sure what that would be. A bigot, or group of bigots that refrained from ostrasizing a gay person are still bigots, they are just guiet ones at time in question. Their personal views wouldn't have altered, they've simply chosen not to voice them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooky3 Posted December 30, 2010 Share Posted December 30, 2010 it the hypothetical group proposed everyone agrees. the reason i made everyone agree was to see if talking in agreement without affecting anyone with a different view should be classed as bigoted. ... You'd need to introduce a second group at a later stage to see if they stayed with the first group or switched sides, even then it'd depend on the reasoning. ... the group might say it's wrong for society or just them, doesn't really matter. if they say that, and agree, but takes no action beyond talking again on their next meeting is it still bigotry? ... Maybe not next time, but the tell would become evident by the reactions when the dynamic was altered and introduced the subject itself. For instance a phobia (a rational fear) of spiders may not present itself whilst discussing it, but when an actual spider is introduced it might. ... in a group where one is gay, and the group says it's wrong but don't ostracize the one I'm not sure what that would be. That's why I asked the definition of wrong... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alien Posted December 30, 2010 Share Posted December 30, 2010 the problem with that is you wouldn't call yourself a bigot. and since you don't voice or act on your thoughts no one would have cause to call you as such. The problem with that is you're not only a bigot but a hypocrite too which would in tern make you a liar. Lies tend to show a person in other ways even if they try to hide other sentiments traits etc. Bigot' ists are more likely to have vast phobias covering a wide spectrum...they tend to slip in the end....I think it's a sweat thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted December 30, 2010 Share Posted December 30, 2010 the problem with that is you wouldn't call yourself a bigot. and since you don't voice or act on your thoughts no one would have cause to call you as such.Another person assessment of you isn't needed. If your inner thoughts are bigoted you are a bigot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted December 30, 2010 Share Posted December 30, 2010 the problem with that is you wouldn't call yourself a bigot. and since you don't voice or act on your thoughts no one would have cause to call you as such. Why not call yourself a bigot? if your answer is because they are bigoted then the problem is not one of definition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooky3 Posted December 30, 2010 Share Posted December 30, 2010 If the group view which you attest to is correct then is it wrong to be a bigot? http://www.thefreedictionary.com/bigot NOTE: This would probably need to be an object topic rather than subjective, e.g. scientific belief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sccsux Posted December 30, 2010 Share Posted December 30, 2010 but secretly I bet most of you lot would agree with me. Well. You'd lose your bet with me (have you seen some of the "white British female" on West Street on a Friday/Saturday night? I wouldn't let some of them babysit a hamster, let alone a child). If someone, for instance, believes that it's not a good thing for two men to marry each other but is happy to accept that their choice is more important than his own opinions, I see no hypocrisy in him turning up and being happy for them. Of course it's hypocrisy. Anyone who goes against that which they believe is acting in a hypocritical manner. it's actually false! It also highlight the bigotry/racism in his/her original post. in a group where one is gay, and the group says it's wrong but don't ostracize the one I'm not sure what that would be. They would then by hypocrites without the courage of their convictions. the problem with that is you wouldn't call yourself a bigot. and since you don't voice or act on your thoughts no one would have cause to call you as such. Eventually people (invariably) let slip with something that shows how they "truly are". For instance a phobia (a rational fear) of spiders may not present itself whilst discussing it A phobia is an irrational fear of something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted December 30, 2010 Share Posted December 30, 2010 Just to muddy the waters still further... suppose that I, personally, believe homosexuality is wrong, but I accept that other people have a right to believe it's right and go ahead and BE homosexual. Am I then a bigot? I'm not disputing a gay person's right to be gay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted December 30, 2010 Share Posted December 30, 2010 from what i'm reading i'm guessing there's a, more or less, general consnsus that thinking does not make it so. 'i think but i am not' as so to speak. what if four men meet for a pint. and they all talk about and agree that, say, being gay is wrong, etc. they have voiced it, and spoken of it at length. does that make the group homophobic even though they mere voiced an agreed upon opinion and have no intention of acting on it. though one might say in the jokes and words used during the talk they 'acted' on their thoughts. Let's take a more extreme example to highlight where the issue lies. Say a group of people get together on a private forum who think Whites are superior to blacks, they discuss the issue, they share news stories like for example every criminal case where a black has been accused gets posted as a thread and the contributors let loose with their prejudices. Their only actions are the expression of their opinions in a non public space, readable only by those that subscribe or become members. If it is a public space then clearly they are racists, if it is a non-public forum are they not just more discrete racists? I can think of examples of both and would not hesitate to call the contributors in both cases racists. I think the primary difference in your example with mine is a matter of degree. The homophobes in a private conversation are still homophobes, whether they are harmless or not. They just aren't as threatening as the racist groups we know that exist because in your situation the conversation is set up to sound like a one off, they are more passive and not obsessive about the issue. They remain homophobes, just not obsessive threatening ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted December 30, 2010 Share Posted December 30, 2010 Of course it's hypocrisy. Anyone who goes against that which they believe is acting in a hypocritical manner. They would not be going against what they believe, in the scenario I outlined. I can attend a wedding and wish a couple joy and happiness even if personally I believe they have no chance at all of achieving them. There is no hypocrisy in that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.