If it's based on facts then you can provide counter arguments, not deny him the right to his opinion whilst spewing hatred which is the very thing your arguing against. (Not you personally but in general).
If it's based on facts then you can provide counter arguments, not deny him the right to his opinion whilst spewing hatred which is the very thing your arguing against. (Not you personally but in general).
That was my point.
You could say that he has the right to hold whatever opinion he holds and I have the right to slam him for it as after all, that is my opinion (that his opinion needs to be slammed down).
You could say that he has the right to hold whatever opinion he holds and I have the right to slam him for it as after all, that is my opinion (that his opinion needs to be slammed down).
I'm referring to the people spreading hatred for him and his religion. You can slam his opinion in the sense of prove it without foundation, or disagree with it. But fighting hatred with hatred is hypocritical (circling back to my initial post).
I'm referring to the people spreading hatred for him and his religion. You can slam his opinion in the sense of prove it without foundation, or disagree with it. But fighting hatred with hatred is hypocritical (circling back to my initial post).
Well I'm confused now, if his religion spreads hatred against homosexuality, then why can't I slam it down?
Well I'm confused now, if his religion spreads hatred against homosexuality, then why can't I slam it down?
Re-read my posts, I think you've jumped in on a conversation with myself and smokencheese and confused the direction of discussion.
He disagreed that fighting hatred against homosexuals with hatred against religion was justified not hypocritical. (Even when Evanda didn't mention religion/bible or anything when communicating his opinion on sexuality).
Re-read my posts, I think you've jumped in on a conversation with myself and smokencheese and confused the direction of discussion.
He disagreed that fighting hatred against homosexuals with hatred against religion was justified not hypocritical. (Even when Evanda didn't mention religion/bible or anything when communicating his opinion on sexuality).
Well isn't religion the root of homophobia anyways? I mean it's evident in some of the posts in this thread (I don't mean yours). I can see why one can be resentful of religion.
Well isn't religion the root of homophobia anyways? I mean it's evident in some of the posts in this thread (I don't mean yours). I can see why one can be resentful of religion.
I wouldn't say necessarily the root. Some of the biggest homophobes I've ever met would be one of the last people to read a bible or step foot in a church.
But my initial point was arguing against the hatred of one group of human beings with hatred of another is counter productive and hypocritical.
I wouldn't say necessarily the root. Some of the biggest homophobes I've ever met would be one of the last people to read a bible or step foot in a church.
But my initial point was arguing against the hatred of one group of human beings with hatred of another is counter productive and hypocritical.
Really? That's interesting, the biggest homophobes I've met were religious. In fact, I've never met a non-religious homophobe. I'm sure there are plenty but I've never encountered them.
Really? That's interesting, the biggest homophobes I've met were religious. In fact, I've never met a non-religious homophobe. I'm sure there are plenty but I've never encountered them.
Yep, you don't have to be religious to be homophobic. And you don't have to be homophobic to be religious. ;-)
I don't deny him or you the right to express such views. However, as has already been said there are rules on the Big Brother show which are very clear. He has the right to express his opinion he does not have the automatic right of Channel 5 to accept them on a show and broadcast it. Just as you have the right to your opinion which I have the right to very strongly disagree with.
This is true, but it was Channel 5 who chose to broadcast them, and to broadcast the warning also. This seems to fly in the face of a concern about promotion of views (obviously the cover-up and then lack of challenging of the bullying of Shilpa was not desirable either, but that was a much less isolated incident which also involved harassment).
This is true, but it was Channel 5 who chose to broadcast them, and to broadcast the warning also. This seems to fly in the face of a concern about promotion of views (obviously the cover-up and then lack of challenging of the bullying of Shilpa was not desirable either, but that was a much less isolated incident which also involved harassment).
Fair enough, but he was warned alongside everyone else what was acceptable and what was not. It was against Channel 5 Big Brother rules and they then have the right to a) show the rule break and b) the consequence of the rule break.
If they had not shown it, I'm pretty sure it would have come out afterwards and people would have been quite rightly annoyed. People are paying money to vote for housemates so deserve to know if anything major has happened, and for a lot of people (myself included) that would be a major deal-breaker in terms of voting to save him.
To be fair, you can't really expect someone who has been suckered into joining a cult like organised religion to have logical and well thought out ideas, if they did they wouldn't be part of a cult
Fair enough, but he was warned alongside everyone else what was acceptable and what was not. It was against Channel 5 Big Brother rules and they then have the right to a) show the rule break and b) the consequence of the rule break.
If they had not shown it, I'm pretty sure it would have come out afterwards and people would have been quite rightly annoyed. People are paying money to vote for housemates so deserve to know if anything major has happened, and for a lot of people (myself included) that would be a major deal-breaker in terms of voting to save him.
Yes I take your point. Although I think they should have made the warning clearer about it being a rule break and that they can't seem to be promoting certain views by letting them go unchallenged, and balancing by explaining what other people think about his remarks, rather than saying that people would find his remarks offensive.
I do accept that the airing of these remarks on broadcast television is more complicated than ordinary freedom of speech, as it involves the input of an organisation as well as an individual. However as people seem to be arguing that these views should never be allowed to be expressed, however much we disagree with them, I think my main post earlier still stands.
Yes I take your point. Although I think they should have made the warning clearer about it being a rule break and that they can't seem to be promoting certain views by letting them go unchallenged, and balancing by explaining what other people think about his remarks, rather than saying that people would find his remarks offensive.
I do accept that the airing of these remarks on broadcast television is more complicated than ordinary freedom of speech, as it involves the input of an organisation as well as an individual. However as people seem to be arguing that these views should never be allowed to be expressed, however much we disagree with them, I think my main post earlier still stands.
Where is the line drawn though? He was articulate and calm, what if a member of the Westboro Baptist Church had been there - same source of opinions but stated in a totally different way. I do struggle with freedom of speech in cases like this, but I stick by with freedom comes responsibilities.
Comments
Challenge and debate views, correct factual errors but don't deny someone their opinions.
If it's based on facts then you can provide counter arguments, not deny him the right to his opinion whilst spewing hatred which is the very thing your arguing against. (Not you personally but in general).
That was my point.
I'm referring to the people spreading hatred for him and his religion. You can slam his opinion in the sense of prove it without foundation, or disagree with it. But fighting hatred with hatred is hypocritical (circling back to my initial post).
You can argue against it but it would be morally wrong to stifle someone's expression of their opinion using force or intimidation.
Re-read my posts, I think you've jumped in on a conversation with myself and smokencheese and confused the direction of discussion.
He disagreed that fighting hatred against homosexuals with hatred against religion was justified not hypocritical. (Even when Evanda didn't mention religion/bible or anything when communicating his opinion on sexuality).
I wouldn't say necessarily the root. Some of the biggest homophobes I've ever met would be one of the last people to read a bible or step foot in a church.
But my initial point was arguing against the hatred of one group of human beings with hatred of another is counter productive and hypocritical.
Suggesting that being gay is like a disability is disgusting.
Get him out..
He sounds like he's yearning for a bit of it secretly
Yep, you don't have to be religious to be homophobic. And you don't have to be homophobic to be religious. ;-)
Oh wait... you're against hatred....
Yeh keep trying with your nonsense..I'm against anything that causes grief, harm, misery and pain...so yes, I'm against religion.
Let's just say your beloved religion 'started it'.
My beloved religion? What's that then?
This is true, but it was Channel 5 who chose to broadcast them, and to broadcast the warning also. This seems to fly in the face of a concern about promotion of views (obviously the cover-up and then lack of challenging of the bullying of Shilpa was not desirable either, but that was a much less isolated incident which also involved harassment).
Fair enough, but he was warned alongside everyone else what was acceptable and what was not. It was against Channel 5 Big Brother rules and they then have the right to a) show the rule break and b) the consequence of the rule break.
If they had not shown it, I'm pretty sure it would have come out afterwards and people would have been quite rightly annoyed. People are paying money to vote for housemates so deserve to know if anything major has happened, and for a lot of people (myself included) that would be a major deal-breaker in terms of voting to save him.
Yes I take your point. Although I think they should have made the warning clearer about it being a rule break and that they can't seem to be promoting certain views by letting them go unchallenged, and balancing by explaining what other people think about his remarks, rather than saying that people would find his remarks offensive.
I do accept that the airing of these remarks on broadcast television is more complicated than ordinary freedom of speech, as it involves the input of an organisation as well as an individual. However as people seem to be arguing that these views should never be allowed to be expressed, however much we disagree with them, I think my main post earlier still stands.
Where is the line drawn though? He was articulate and calm, what if a member of the Westboro Baptist Church had been there - same source of opinions but stated in a totally different way. I do struggle with freedom of speech in cases like this, but I stick by with freedom comes responsibilities.
So was Hitler.