Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
While I hate to side with BoLevi in... well, anything, you don't appear understand what a "moral issue" is.
All "moral issue" means is that there is a normative statement about behaviour in play. A social contract is a moral issue. If your position has the word "should" in it - if you're suggesting that someone should participate in a social contract, or should be "accepting/tolerating/including everyone", you're talking about a moral issue.
|
Sure, I have reframed not being a bigot as a social contract instead of a moral issue. Morality involves a discussion over right and wrong. There is no discussion when it comes to bigotry vs. inclusion. Inclusion (i.e equality) is a given in modern society.
Considering this a moral discussion opens the door to people like Bolevi throwing out the invented "tolerance paradox" whereby we are required to be tolerant to his intolerance...otherwise we are intolerant.This is a load of crap.
Intolerance to bigots, whether they be Nazis, racists, homophobes etc. is simply our reaction to their breaking the social contract of equality.
Bolevi also intentionally ignores the harm caused to at risk groups when they are attacked by bigots like Reimer (yes Bolevi, that was an ideological attack). But that's more of him showing his personal bias.