What basis is there for someone to feel "uncomfortable around black people" or to "not like gays". What is it that they don't like? What is it that makes them uncomfortable?
As TC says, BOTN, there shouldn't be anything that should automatically make us think as mentioned, but there could be reasons that some would think that way. What you mean, I think, is that we shouldn't have to fear saying what we think as long as it's not offensive . . . . or have I got that wrong
There are some studies around evopsych that explain why people feel these kinds of ways, they’re constantly replicated in studies as well.
Good point. All I can reply with is this - I suppose it's their business why they feel uncomfortable, or dislike. Maybe through personal past experiences etc, I can't really comment on their personal reasons. However, as long as we don't create a public sceene (which looks like violent) we should be able to have our own reasons without wanting to cause any malice.
There are many facets to this. The Christian Church says that homosexuality is a sin. Many people base their opinions about gay people on this. But who says the church is right? What right do they have to decide what is right or wrong? There are many, many people who believe religion to be no more than a means of control. Secondly, we have a racist culture in this country (as do many other countries of course) and it's loosely based on the fear of the unknown and the dislike of change. I had a long conversargument with my Auntie a few years back. She argued that her unease towards people of colour (not the phrase she used) was based on her childhood where there were no, or very few non-white people in her town, she wasn't used to seeing black and asian people, felt uncomfortable being around people that were different. She argued that terms such as W*g and P*ki were acceptable because they were acronyms and abbreviations, rather than racist terms - my counter-argument was that they may well have started that way, but had since been used as forms of abuse and/or discrimination. In my own experience, the casual racism that exists in this country comes from my parents/grandparents' generation where they had an aversion to change. This has been passed down the generations by some parts of our society, but largely I think we are more enlightened. The same goes for homosexuality, and I understand how/why some people feel uncomfortable when you see things like Pride, or overtly camp gay people in public, but to understand this is to also understand the repression that existed for the hundreds for years previously. It was only 1967 before it became legal to be a gay man in this country. That is astounding - the laws of the land prohibit who you can sleep with! It was only 2014 before gay people were allowed to get married. I mean, what the actual ****? 10 years ago it was illegal to get married as a gay couple?!? To that end I can understand the very public expressions of homosexuality as much as I can understand, if not condone resistance to it.
It's a sad day when people with outdated, morally shoddy beliefs feel like they need to keep quiet and not spout their bigotry for fear of hurting people's feelings. What we need is more rights for racists and homophobes, they should feel safe to spread hate whenever they feel like it regardless of the reprehensible damage it has, especially on children growing up in all the ways said racists and homophobes hate. Wait. That doesn't ****ing sound right.
I’m sure this will be futile but here goes, if morality does not come from God (I am not making this claim, I am asking), where does it come from, and who gets to say what is moral or immoral? By almost all metrics, other than from BLM activist professors, the UK is consistently shown to be one of the most tolerant countries in the world, if we have a racist culture we also have a baseball culture, seeing as some people here like and play baseball. Racism, which is simply an ingroup/outgroup dynamic, is an evolved trait to protect the tribe from invasion and genocide that was commonplace until the modern era.
The catholic church who are something of a tastemaker within extremist Christianity, in their deeds, also plainly suggest the systemic buggery and abuse of children is acceptable just so long as it is covered up and priests are moved on to new parishes to go on to bugger and abuse once more. I grew up with the church, it really shouldnt be held us as a purveyor of humane nor acceptable modern thinking.
What are your thoughts on young racists who read philosophy (Heidegger, Nietzsche etc), went to University and read the latest .gov pdf studies on racial differences?
Morality comes from within - we are all human beings with brains. We can see what is right or wrong. There is no "God" and even if there were, these so-called morals come from the people who worship him NOT the being him/herself. I do not accept the metric that says UK is "better" at being anti-racist that other countries, because it's not a reasonable comparison for a myriad of reasons (culture, religion, diversity, socio-economic factors, education etc etc). What I DO see is black footballers getting racist abuse or death threats after missing a penalty. I see Asian mothers being attacked and intimidated in front of their kids simply because wear clothes that are "different" to the person abusing them. I'm not sure you can dismiss racism as ingroup/outgroup as if it's differing views on politics or sports - people get abused, attacked or worse because of the colour of their skin. It's as simple as that.
If morality comes from within, and if two people have two opposing views on a moral issue, how do you find out who is correct?
So did I. I moved away from it as soon as I was allowed to make my own decisions. I agree about it not being a purveyor of humane nor acceptable modern thinking, but there are millions who think it IS
Conflict is fine, as long as it stays respectful. Person One thinks homosexuality is disgusting Person Two is a homosexual Person Two should be able to go about his/her life without harassment from Person One Person One shouldn't be allowed to make/uphold laws that stop Person Two living their life And vice versa. The problems come when people make laws that a) restrict the actions of people they do not agree with and b) other people form their beliefs from those laws.
I grew up without religion (atheist upbringing) but upon reflection feel like it gave society certain guardrails that we now see are non existent and the resulting fall outs of the last couple of decades (getting progressively worse) because it is no longer there.
There are pros and cons. What I would say is that there was plenty crime and social disorder when this country had a higher percentage of God-fearing folk so the two aren't mutually exclusive. When religion becomes controlling, or a trigger for discrimination then you are in dangerous territory.
I'm incredibly torn about religion, I find much of it sublime and much of it ridiculous. But my overall feeling is one of dismay that something quite beautiful has turned out like anything else powerful we have invented, it's been abused by cruel people to prey upon weak people. I don't think the death of religion is harming society, I think its killer the growth of self interest is.
So you’re working off the non aggression principle. What about actions that harm societies health in a low impact way or non violent way, but the people doing it claim they should be free to do so? A moral quandry. If Nazis wish to form a new group, but fully commit to non violence, are they free or suppressed in your utopia?
