Discussion
budgie smuggler said:
El stovey said:
He's intolerant of people that are born gay.
Source of that?He has been inconsistent. Vacilllated between voting with his conscience, and voting the way what he needed to be seen to be voting.
El stovey said:
It isn't ironic at all. He's intolerant of people that are born gay.
Tolerance is defined as “the ability or willingness to tolerate the existence of opinions or behaviour that one dislikes or disagrees with”. Despite his faith determining homosexuality as a sin, his voting record shows that, as a politician, he has supported all measures to promote equality for and end discrimination against gays. That seems to match pretty well the definition of ‘tolerance’ IMHO.El stovey said:
It's like me saying I hate you because you're black.
It's not the same. Farron has never said he 'hated' homosexuals. He has deliberately tried to avoid talking about the issue, because he knows full well that his views are clearly at odds with what’s expected from the leader of what is supposed to be a ‘liberal’ party. Maybe he should have just lied about it and said he had no problem with gays, but I assume that he was not prepared to deliberately lie for the sake of political expediency and I can at least respect him for that. El stovey said:
He then expected people to tolerate his views but his views are based on his belief in a god and what he thinks his god thinks about homosexuals.
Yes he has, based on the definition of ‘tolerance’ as above. He’s not asking for any special treatment, just tolerance of his right to hold private opinions formed as a result of following a certain faith. The vast majority of people (myself included) may not align with those opinions, but being 'tolerant' means that, even if we find them completely disagreeable, we have to accept that he has the right to hold them.SpeckledJim said:
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/whats-tim-farrons-track-record-on-lgbt-rights
He has been inconsistent. Vacilllated between voting with his conscience, and voting the way what he needed to be seen to be voting.
Hmmm. Interesting. Does seem that way.He has been inconsistent. Vacilllated between voting with his conscience, and voting the way what he needed to be seen to be voting.
His liberal political views mean he fights to improve and protect the lives of all minorities, even those with whom he has little sympathy, be it gays, religions, fat people, thin people or anyone else. He is to be applauded for that.
The Tories new bessie mates, on the other hand, describe gay people as similar to peadophiles. They are openly grossly bigotted, but more or less beyond criticism or scrutiny on here because they are propping up the Tory lame duck PM.
The real hypocrites are on here.
The Tories new bessie mates, on the other hand, describe gay people as similar to peadophiles. They are openly grossly bigotted, but more or less beyond criticism or scrutiny on here because they are propping up the Tory lame duck PM.
The real hypocrites are on here.
deadslow said:
The Tories new bessie mates, on the other hand, describe gay people as similar to peadophiles. They are openly grossly bigotted, but more or less beyond criticism or scrutiny on here because they are propping up the Tory lame duck PM.
Where are these posts?Nobody is beyond scrutiny or criticism.
He's perfectly entitled to his views, and we're perfectly entitled to take issue with them. If he hadn't obfuscated when asked he wouldn't be in this pickle and it wouldn't look like he was struggling with tolerating homosexuality.
Further to that, these days I don't think it's particularly liberal just to "tolerate" homosexuality, which is why people made such a big deal of it.
Further to that, these days I don't think it's particularly liberal just to "tolerate" homosexuality, which is why people made such a big deal of it.
Bill said:
He's perfectly entitled to his views, and we're perfectly entitled to take issue with them. If he hadn't obfuscated when asked he wouldn't be in this pickle and it wouldn't look like he was struggling with tolerating homosexuality.
Further to that, these days I don't think it's particularly liberal just to "tolerate" homosexuality, which is why people made such a big deal of it.
Accepted, but how liberal is it to just tolerate those who just tolerate things that trigger so-called liberals? Is liberal tolerance really reserved for those who think like liberals? Such people are surely also entitled to their views.Further to that, these days I don't think it's particularly liberal just to "tolerate" homosexuality, which is why people made such a big deal of it.
deadslow said:
His liberal political views mean he fights to improve and protect the lives of all minorities, even those with whom he has little sympathy, be it gays, religions, fat people, thin people or anyone else. He is to be applauded for that.
That's not in his voting record. Sometimes he does, sometimes he definitely doesn't. turbobloke said:
Accepted, but how liberal is it to just tolerate those who just tolerate things that trigger so-called liberals? Is liberal tolerance really reserved for those who think like liberals?
Not at all. The issue is his apparent hypocrisy. That and the press going after any perceived weakness.Bill said:
turbobloke said:
Accepted, but how liberal is it to just tolerate those who just tolerate things that trigger so-called liberals? Is liberal tolerance really reserved for those who think like liberals?
Not at all. The issue is his apparent hypocrisy. That and the press going after any perceived weakness.That's equality!
ash73 said:
Bill said:
these days I don't think it's particularly liberal just to "tolerate" homosexuality
I think this is the key point some people are missing.Good riddance to Farron imo. But his backward religious beliefs are a side issue; the party must change their stance on Europe.
deadslow said:
His liberal political views mean he fights to improve and protect the lives of all minorities, even those with whom he has little sympathy, be it gays, religions, fat people, thin people or anyone else. He is to be applauded for that.
The Tories new bessie mates, on the other hand, describe gay people as similar to peadophiles. They are openly grossly bigotted, but more or less beyond criticism or scrutiny on here because they are propping up the Tory lame duck PM.
The real hypocrites are on here.
And that's the bullseye. Well fThe Tories new bessie mates, on the other hand, describe gay people as similar to peadophiles. They are openly grossly bigotted, but more or less beyond criticism or scrutiny on here because they are propping up the Tory lame duck PM.
The real hypocrites are on here.
king said.SilverSixer said:
deadslow said:
His liberal political views mean he fights to improve and protect the lives of all minorities, even those with whom he has little sympathy, be it gays, religions, fat people, thin people or anyone else. He is to be applauded for that.
The Tories new bessie mates, on the other hand, describe gay people as similar to peadophiles. They are openly grossly bigotted, but more or less beyond criticism or scrutiny on here because they are propping up the Tory lame duck PM.
The real hypocrites are on here.
And that's the bullseye. Well fThe Tories new bessie mates, on the other hand, describe gay people as similar to peadophiles. They are openly grossly bigotted, but more or less beyond criticism or scrutiny on here because they are propping up the Tory lame duck PM.
The real hypocrites are on here.
king said.Is this thread about Tim Who or non-existent PH mush...
Bill said:
He's perfectly entitled to his views, and we're perfectly entitled to take issue with them. If he hadn't obfuscated when asked he wouldn't be in this pickle and it wouldn't look like he was struggling with tolerating homosexuality.
Further to that, these days I don't think it's particularly liberal just to "tolerate" homosexuality, which is why people made such a big deal of it.
Quite. Scottish MP on TW last night helped me to consider this. To be 'tolerated', well one can tolerate a friend who has different views...but sexual orientation, that's who they are, their being...to tolerate a human being that exists, because of what he does in the bedroom? Highly fFurther to that, these days I don't think it's particularly liberal just to "tolerate" homosexuality, which is why people made such a big deal of it.
king moral of him.SpeckledJim said:
You're arguing that intolerance should be tolerated as part of a tolerant society.
TF is saying, in effect: "I am intolerant, and I should be tolerated!" Why, if you do not tolerate others?
If we had a tolerant society, then there wouldn't be any intolerant people for us to tolerate.
If Christians and Muslims want to denigrate homosexuals that's their choice. They are intolerant, by definition.
A tolerant person would not have any particular opinion on homosexuality, and certainly not a negative one. If we decide it's not ok to be intolerant to homosexuals, that's to our credit, and to the shame of the religious.
Someone said we should be tolerant of everything except intolerance. They were right.
You are confusing tolerance with not not liking something. This is not what tolerance is. If you had no particular opinion or liked something you wouldn't have to be tolerating it!TF is saying, in effect: "I am intolerant, and I should be tolerated!" Why, if you do not tolerate others?
If we had a tolerant society, then there wouldn't be any intolerant people for us to tolerate.
If Christians and Muslims want to denigrate homosexuals that's their choice. They are intolerant, by definition.
A tolerant person would not have any particular opinion on homosexuality, and certainly not a negative one. If we decide it's not ok to be intolerant to homosexuals, that's to our credit, and to the shame of the religious.
Someone said we should be tolerant of everything except intolerance. They were right.
Edited by SpeckledJim on Thursday 15th June 15:51
SpeckledJim said:
SilverSixer said:
PurpleMoonlight said:
SpeckledJim said:
You're arguing that intolerance should be tolerated as part of a tolerant society.
TF is saying, in effect: "I am intolerant, and I should be tolerated!" Why, if you do not tolerate others?
If we had a tolerant society, then there wouldn't be any intolerant people for us to tolerate.
If Christians and Muslims want to denigrate homosexuals that's their choice. They are intolerant, by definition.
A tolerant person would not have any particular opinion on homosexuality, and certainly not a negative one. If we decide it's not ok to be intolerant to homosexuals, that's to our credit, and to the shame of the religious.
Someone said we should be tolerant of everything except intolerance. They were right.
You clearly do not understand the meaning of tolerant.TF is saying, in effect: "I am intolerant, and I should be tolerated!" Why, if you do not tolerate others?
If we had a tolerant society, then there wouldn't be any intolerant people for us to tolerate.
If Christians and Muslims want to denigrate homosexuals that's their choice. They are intolerant, by definition.
A tolerant person would not have any particular opinion on homosexuality, and certainly not a negative one. If we decide it's not ok to be intolerant to homosexuals, that's to our credit, and to the shame of the religious.
Someone said we should be tolerant of everything except intolerance. They were right.
Edited by SpeckledJim on Thursday 15th June 15:51
Can't believe I'm defending a religionist view here, but there we go. Right's right. A Liberal should be defined by actions, not thoughts.
But he's resigned because he felt his traditional Christian right to squirm and deflect when asked if homosexuality is a sin was not being respected. Of course it wasn't respected - these views are not those of a modern liberal British person.
His claimed tolerance of homosexuality was clearly not genuine.
He isn't actually tolerant of homosexuals - he's quit his job because his job required him to pretend to be tolerant of homosexuals and he couldn't sleep at night.
Tolerance - the ability or willingness to tolerate the existence of opinions or behaviour that one dislikes or disagrees with.
Tolerate = allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one dislikes or disagrees with) without interference.
He was never looking to interfere with gay people AFAIK.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff