Is personal taste bigotry?

[maccrash]

And yellow apples do? Well that's just being bigoted against red apples! Check your appley privilege! /s

And it's more personification rather than an analogy. I believe it fits to be relevant. Whether it remains to be seen as serious as the discussion here is up to you.

hahahahaha dammit I meant to just write 'apples.' oh the irony.

Are you seriously trying to say that being unattracted to someone automatically makes you an ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥?

Are you one of those people who thinks that unless you're attracted to literally everyone that you're just a horrible person?

......what? no? I'm just saying that using fruit as a comparison to humans is poor because apples are not even close to being the same thing as humans. look earlier in the thread where I posted that I did not think personal taste was bigotry.

 

[Vix Axiom]

I suppose you could say that some people have their own personal taste when it comes to different apples.

And in counter to that statement, social justice warriors actually justify that certain objects possess more worth than certain humans. Often white men, at white man's expense.

 

[Star-Lord]

No need to pretend to be nice if you are not.

I'm lovely. It's just that I found a lot of your tl;dr point missed the overall scope of what I was trying to talk about, so I apologized for it. ?____? Sorry.

Agree but disagree, and my rapist remark was a bad analogy, but I'll address reasoning for sexual attraction in my next paragraph. Sure, I can see the merits of treating people individually when assessing them but if someone is something that doesn't fall into your preferences you should be able to dismiss them for sexual preferences if you choose to. The quantitative logic of needing to remain 100% open, not expressing your opinion as pertinent to all also boggles me. Like hey, if I dismissed 9/10 black people as sexual interests purely on skin colour then felt attraction to another despite it does that make me not racist for dismissing that other 90%? (Not that I think sexual preference should be considered a part of racism.) Being open is fine, but I think it's also fair to say that if you just don't like something well that's that. I'm not going to prod you and say "Hey Moogles, I know you're gay but you see those pretty ladies over there? You should go hit on them because hey... some women could be attractive?"

Using sexual orientation isn't really the best comparison for a discussion like this. I get what you're saying, but you're comparing something that has been scientifically proven cannot be changed with something that many people change throughout their lifetime. It's about re-evaluating why you find people/features attractive or not vs. That you cannot find the opposite/same sex attractive even if you tried.

To address Daigonite and Moogles, my opinion is that sexual preferences are based on human psychology, some form of ingrained genetic factors and to an extent learnt behaviour. However, I also believe that we can get much more specific than saying genitals are the only factor that is acceptable for not even considering someone as a sexual object. It's not bigotry either, just personal choice, which is my stance on the thread topic.

I can agree to this because human sexuality is an interesting a fluid thing. Some people don't find gingers attractive and all that. It's just a matter of when you see a black person and automatically disregard anything due to your "personal preference" that I find bad.

Yes, it is extremely bad. A constitution protects everyone, it does not give favouritism.

It does protect everyone - Which is why protecting a larger group of people is more important than protecting the personal expression of a bigot in this case. Canadian Law has interesting constitutional precedents that other countries have taken into account as well. Perhaps you should look into it a bit, because it seems everyone is misunderstanding where I'm coming from.

Please explain how saying you don't want to be friends/romantically involved with others for any reason violates their constitutional rights.

I wasn't arguing that. I was using it as an example since people kept going "Oh well everyone should be able to say anything". Personal expression can be legally limited in some cases for the protection of the greater good and that was my point :P

 

[Livewire]

Let's cut it out while we're ahead, guys. Take the beef elsewhere and get back to a calmer discussion.

 

[Plumpyfoof]

I'm going to go out there and say that it's bigotry to discriminate against bigots. Personally I'm selective as hell when it comes to finding a sexual partner, and frankly would be very offended if someone claimed to me that I'm wrong for having preferences and should want to sleep with everyone equally.
Actually, I would go out of my way to make sure that person knew I was actively defying them.

 

[Dakotah]

The Canadian Constitution limits all rights to what is acceptable in a "free and democratic society" and that means we can diminish hate speech. Is it really that bad if we burdened someone's constitutional rights if we are protecting the constitutional rights of other people? It's just an example mind you.

Okay, I have to jump in here because as a Canadian I have been following recent cases dealing specifically with hate speech laws in Canada.

You will recall there was a an independent candidate by the name of John Popescu who ran in the 2008 federal election. He was charged with promoting hate for comments that were made at an all-candidates meeting at Sudbury Secondary High School on Sept. 29, 2008 after being asked by a student about his view on same-sex marriage. He said:

I believe that homosexuals should be executed.

Then, later that same day, during a telephone interview, he reasserted his view:

A young man asked me what I think of homosexual marriages and I said I think homosexuals should be executed. My whole reason for running is the Bible and the Bible couldn't be more clear on that point.

In March of 2009, the Ministry of the Attorney General announced that they had concluded their investigation, and officially charged Popescu with two counts of willful promotion of hatred under Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

During the trial, which took place in August of 2009, the judge said that he was "not at all satisfied with the explanation by Mr. Popescu that his statements are based on his religious beliefs." He said that Popescu "basically picks and chooses what is in his best interest, according to his interpretation of the Bible," and "has clothed his disgraceful attitude to this community of people (gays and lesbians) in a religious context".

Popescu was subsequently convicted of willfully promoting hatred against homosexuals, and was given a suspended sentence and placed on probation for 18 months.

Now, contrast that with a more recent case involving a former male prostitute by the name of William Whatcott of Saskatchewan, who is now an anti-gay crusader, in which the court struck down portions of Saskatchewan's Human Rights Code which banned speech that "ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity of" identifiable groups.

So there has to be a balance of protections. Free speech still has to be respected, including hate speech. When that hate speech becomes criminal is when the speech promotes violence or other harms toward that identifiable group. Simply calling someone a racial slur or telling them they will go to hell for being gay is not speech that rises to a level where charges could be laid.

 

[Star-Lord]

Simply calling someone a racial slur or telling them they will go to hell for being gay is not speech that rises to a level where charges could be laid.

Congratulations on telling me something I already knew.

 

[Dakotah]

Congratulations on telling me something I already knew.

Here is your quote again:

The Canadian Constitution limits all rights to what is acceptable in a "free and democratic society" and that means we can diminish hate speech. Is it really that bad if we burdened someone's constitutional rights if we are protecting the constitutional rights of other people? It's just an example mind you.

Your assertion was a generalized one that indicated that all hate speech (not just specific forms of hate speech) can be limited, or made illegal. But this is not true as the case I indicated demonstrates. Hate speech that "ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity of" identifiable groups cannot be limited according to our laws. The courts have already ruled on that. So when you say the constitution allows for the diminishing of the freedom of speech, it's important that you also indicate to what degree it is permitted. Making overly generalized statements like that only confuses the issue. The way you worded it made it sound as though hate speech, all hate speech, could be restricted.

 

[Star-Lord]

Your assertion was a generalized one that indicated that all hate speech (not just specific forms of hate speech) can be limited, or made illegal. But this is not true as the case I indicated demonstrates. Hate speech that "ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity of" identifiable groups cannot be limited according to our laws. The courts have already ruled on that. So when you say the constitution allows for the diminishing of the freedom of speech, it's important that you also indicate to what degree it is permitted. Making overly generalized statements like that only confuses the issue. The way you worded it made it sound as though hate speech, all hate speech, could be restricted.

Holy hell lmfao you're being isnanely pedantic in an attempt to educate me over a) Knowledge I already know b) Ultimately nothing. Sorry I didn't word something to your tastes.

 

[Dakotah]

Holy hell lmfao you're being isnanely pedantic in an attempt to educate me over a) Knowledge I already know b) Ultimately nothing. Sorry I didn't word something to your tastes.

If you are not clear on what you are trying to say, you only wind up confusing the issue. What is or isn't to my tastes is irrelevant. You made a generalized statement. Its wording was misleading. In forums like this, as with any written media, it is especially important to be clear because what you say can so easily be misinterpreted. You call me pedantic. Maybe I am. But when someone makes such misleading, generalized statements as you did, it begs for clarification. I'm sorry you failed to see that I was trying to help.

 

[Kanzler]

If you are not clear on what you are trying to say, you only wind up confusing the issue. What is or isn't to my tastes is irrelevant. You made a generalized statement. Its wording was misleading. In forums like this, as with any written media, it is especially important to be clear because what you say can so easily be misinterpreted. You call me pedantic. Maybe I am. But when someone makes such misleading, generalized statements as you did, it begs for clarification. I'm sorry you failed to see that I was trying to help.

I have to agree with Jay here. I wouldn't get away with putting a sentence like that in my mandatory Canadian Politics course.

 

[Star-Lord]

Sorry, I did word it badly. Mind you I don't think you were being that helpful in your original post Alessi_Sys (but I won't go into that too much) - I apologize. I honestly think you both understood what I meant (Generalized or no, give me some credit in thinking that I wouldn't have everyone's free speech struck down simply because it's in the charter. I mean come on I even put in how it was limited to what is in a free and democratic society.) so I don't think it was really necessary to bring up, but different strokes. Hell, you could have even just asked me since apparently I wasn't clear enough, and I would've easily been able to explain what you've both essentially told me.

~C'est la vie~

 

[zakisrage]

It's normal for people to only be attracted to certain types of people. That's how we're programmed. For example, I don't find blonde girls attractive at all. I don't hate all blonde girls; I just don't find them attractive - I prefer girls with dark hair (like my girlfriend).

 

[Lotus the Cat]

Let's try to swing this back on topic....

Going from earlier in the discussion, particularly relating to weight and how the perception of beauty - fat vs. thin - has changed and differs. I believe it has to do with wealth (and our perception of it) and always has.

Go back some hundred years and wealth meant you could eat larger portions of food - you were fatter.

Another aspect that used to be considered beautiful in western culture was the paleness and smoothness of one's skin. This was because the poor had to labour and toil - they got tanned in the sun, their skin roughened. The rich stayed indoors - no physical labour.

Skip forward in time, tanned skin is now attractive. What do wealthy people do a lot of? Leisure, beaches, tropical islands - they are now tanned.

Current day, fat is ugly. People in low socioeconomic situations tend to eat more McDonalds, etc. whereas the wealthy are generally healthier and eat well, they exercise and are generally slimmer.

Society and what we're exposed to does affect what we find attractive. We may be highly aware of what we do, but we still have basic instincts to reproduce with superior mates. The perception of superior changes with circumstances.

Does this make us bigoted? I don't think so. I think sexual attraction is too unconscious to be that way. You look at someone and you know within seconds whether you are or are not attracted to them. Knowing it may be wrong to ostracise a group because of a shared trait is one thing, being able to share the intimacy of an adult relationship is another.

 

[OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire]

I have asked myself this question before. I don't think that it's bigotry, we all have things we like and dislike. So long as one doesn't take those preferences to the extreme, like say bully or kill anyone who doesn't fit the preference or isn't like one's self in what they like. If they go past the threshold I mentioned then they have entered bigotry.

 

[Kung Fu Ferret]

Using myself as an example here...
Every woman I ever wanted to date (and ever will) was black. I prefer the darker tones of black as opposed to the lighter tones.
Is this racist? I don't know. But I wouldn't plan on dating someone who is mixed, white, Asian, Hispanic, et cetera.. Because I honestly don't find them that physically appealing.

Although interracial dating is on the rise, I am basically the only white guy I know who only likes black women. But to me, it doesn't matter what part of the US, Africa, or the Caribbean where they are from, as long as they fit all of my other criteria.
Here is a personal story.

Spoiler:

The first woman I ever technically dated was from Cameroon. That, unfortunately did not last long at all, thanks to my dad's racist fiancee. That was a couple years ago... Still pissed off at her (I actually blocked her on Facebook, tempted to call her out on her bigotry with several choice words that I probably shouldn't say via private messages.

EDIT: Does this make me racist? Some people think so. But I disagree. Everyone has their personal tastes.

 

[Aeroblast]

As long as there's no hatred involved in the reasoning of the said person's taste, then it's not really being a bigot.