FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to The Lounge

Consistency

Jump to newest
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

I'd like to start by saying this is not a political discussion. It's a general discussion about consistency. It just happened to be politics that got me thinking about it.

I was watching Real Time and he had Breitbart editor Milo Yiannoppoulos on as a guest. While talking, Milo, who was called out by Bill for being a gay Catholic conservative, said: "It's a characteristic of the modern left, I think, requiring this absolute consistency, and forgetting that people are messy and complicated."

This quote really struck me. To me, consistency is something I value very highly. Not only do I find it indispensable to rational debate, but I also find it directional for life in general.

Here is my question - what do you think about consistency? For debating and for life in general. Is it a liberal idea? Or is it important more generally?

I have to admit that I was slightly horrified by the casual way in which consistency was tossed aside.

-Courtney

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

.....@

Just me then

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I dont understand the bloody question?consistencyof what? Custard?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I don't think anyone is truly consistent in their behaviour.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"I dont understand the bloody question?consistencyof what? Custard?"

Consistency in your beliefs. How you rationalize things. How you act.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"I don't think anyone is truly consistent in their behaviour."

I think you're right. But shouldn't we strive towards consistency? Or should we just say fuck it, and be knowlingly inconsistent? How would rational discussions and debate happen in such a world?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *eliWoman
over a year ago

.

Oh Courtney! I'll post.

I think consistency is important, to a degree. I think people change and as part of that their views often change - I don't think you can expect consistency in all aspects of life.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *icecouple561Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

East Sussex

I value consistency very highly. Consistency of opinion for instance, I hate it when people change their opinion based on the company they're in but I'm happy if opinions are changed via direct evidence or through discussion. Consistency or morals, I respect people who have a well thought out moral code that they stick to in the face of opposition and aren't afraid to defend. It's impossible to have a discussion if people aren't consistent.

I'm not too bothered if someone tells me they love jaffa cakes on Monday then hate them by Thursday except it makes buying biscuits for them rather difficult.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ilary and DonaldCouple
over a year ago

chingford

I think I know what you're on about.

When debating, arguing or just discussing something you would like the other person to be consistent in their views. (I think)

I am not so concerned about this. I think it's ok for people to change their views and opinions if they have listened to you and accepted the argument put before them.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I dont understand the bloody question?consistencyof what? Custard?

Consistency in your beliefs. How you rationalize things. How you act."

Depends really as factors change in an ever changing environment.

So don't you have to adapt and change to accommodate environmental changes?

Your beliefs how you rationalise things and hos you act isnt always going to be a constant is it as nothing stays static and you have to adapt to those changes along the way.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I don't believe consistency is important in every aspect of life. I like pliancy and the ability to change. My whole life is like that and always has been. I'm not set in my ways,I change my mind a lot. I let something slide one day,but don't the next.

I'm not particularly politically minded or a deep thinker, any more.

My thoughts butterfly around my brain most of the time and I lose my train of thought. That could be why I'm not consistent. It's not done me any harm, I don't think.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"I think I know what you're on about.

When debating, arguing or just discussing something you would like the other person to be consistent in their views. (I think)

I am not so concerned about this. I think it's ok for people to change their views and opinions if they have listened to you and accepted the argument put before them.

"

I don't mean when people change their views in the face of new facts or argumentation. I mean when people hold simultaneous contradictory beliefs.

For example, the guy who said the quote, Milo, decried religion, but made an exception for Catholicism (his own religion). He actually believe consistency isn't important. I don't understand how to debate against someone who will hold contradictory beliefs simultaneously.

I guess I did a poor job of explaining in my OP. Sorry.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Being highly empathetic makes it difficult to be consistent. You can almost always see something in other people's argument. It's a bit annoying, to be honest.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I think I know what you're on about.

When debating, arguing or just discussing something you would like the other person to be consistent in their views. (I think)

I am not so concerned about this. I think it's ok for people to change their views and opinions if they have listened to you and accepted the argument put before them.

I don't mean when people change their views in the face of new facts or argumentation. I mean when people hold simultaneous contradictory beliefs.

For example, the guy who said the quote, Milo, decried religion, but made an exception for Catholicism (his own religion). He actually believe consistency isn't important. I don't understand how to debate against someone who will hold contradictory beliefs simultaneously.

I guess I did a poor job of explaining in my OP. Sorry. "

Are you talking about hypocrisy?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"I think I know what you're on about.

When debating, arguing or just discussing something you would like the other person to be consistent in their views. (I think)

I am not so concerned about this. I think it's ok for people to change their views and opinions if they have listened to you and accepted the argument put before them.

I don't mean when people change their views in the face of new facts or argumentation. I mean when people hold simultaneous contradictory beliefs.

For example, the guy who said the quote, Milo, decried religion, but made an exception for Catholicism (his own religion). He actually believe consistency isn't important. I don't understand how to debate against someone who will hold contradictory beliefs simultaneously.

I guess I did a poor job of explaining in my OP. Sorry.

Are you talking about hypocrisy? "

I'm talking about logical inconsistency. It leads to hypocrisy, yes.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *oodmessMan
over a year ago

yumsville

If you were consistent in your beliefs you'd be crossing the road, arguing with people in shops or stopping people to almost enforce your views. Turning the other cheek let's us navigate life without endangering it. Though I suppose if asked we would still have the same view if ever asked , just not outwardly spoken?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The importance of consistency varies depending on what it's applied too.

For example, I believe it's important to have a consistent approach when interacting with others on a daily basis, ie work colleagues, parenting children, friends...this way everyone knows where stand, the base line.

However life / circumstances change and this has to be taken into account & adjusted if need be.

A lack of consistency in views can be perceived as being flakey, wanting to please, which is different than changing your opinion based on another's viewpoint.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

Perhaps Wikipedia can describe it better than me. It's a logical fallacy in deductive reasoning:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consistency

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Bit to deep for me on a saturday morning

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"If you were consistent in your beliefs you'd be crossing the road, arguing with people in shops or stopping people to almost enforce your views. Turning the other cheek let's us navigate life without endangering it. Though I suppose if asked we would still have the same view if ever asked , just not outwardly spoken? "

But that's my point. The breitbart editor was saying there isn't a need to hold consistent views internally. That it's a liberal obsession.

Keep in mind he is a very influential person. I'm wondering if this is a commonly held belief....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ost SockMan
over a year ago

West Wales and Cardiff

I'm consistently inconsistent .

Seriously though, it's a tough one. I like the idea of consistency, but not when it tips into dogmatism.

Maybe the perfect answer for me is mostly consistent, but with some scope for inconsistency allowed, as it makes things more interesting and allows for human nature.

Frankly, I've just realised I haven't got a clue what I'm on about and, worse still, I'm hearing myself say it in Ross from Friends's voice.

I need a lie down.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Bit to deep for me on a saturday morning"

Surely not! Saturday is for thinking!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Bit to deep for me on a saturday morning

Surely not! Saturday is for thinking! "

Not if you were out drinking, Friday night.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *uckOfTheBayMan
over a year ago

Mold

Consistency vs hypocrisy ....

People's views and opinions change over time, but that's often a case of becoming more worldly, and experienced.

As long as your current beliefs are consistent and not flip flopping all over the place.

Be true to yourself, not someone else

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Bit to deep for me on a saturday morning

Surely not! Saturday is for thinking!

Not if you were out drinking, Friday night."

Fair point. I, clearly, was not.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I dont understand the bloody question?consistencyof what? Custard?

Consistency in your beliefs. How you rationalize things. How you act."

I think you can be consistent but have idiosyncrasies which might take appear consistent to others but not to you.... That's my take on messy. I can be a total libtard on some things yet hate everything to do with modern feminism and I'm pro free market capitalism. All are attached to a consistent philosophy but it takes a lot of effort to explain how they are not inconsistent.

I like milo, he is very smart.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *uckandbunnyCouple
over a year ago

In your bed


"I'd like to start by saying this is not a political discussion. It's a general discussion about consistency. It just happened to be politics that got me thinking about it.

I was watching Real Time and he had Breitbart editor Milo Yiannoppoulos on as a guest. While talking, Milo, who was called out by Bill for being a gay Catholic conservative, said: "It's a characteristic of the modern left, I think, requiring this absolute consistency, and forgetting that people are messy and complicated."

This quote really struck me. To me, consistency is something I value very highly. Not only do I find it indispensable to rational debate, but I also find it directional for life in general.

Here is my question - what do you think about consistency? For debating and for life in general. Is it a liberal idea? Or is it important more generally?

I have to admit that I was slightly horrified by the casual way in which consistency was tossed aside.

-Courtney "

I think consistency is almost impossible. One set of your beliefs is bound to clash with another.

Ie I am very much believe in forgiveness, I also think corporal and capital punishment has a place in the justice system.

I'm dead against using drugs, but I think they should be legal.

To have consistent beliefs would require a dogmatic approach to life.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Bit to deep for me on a saturday morning

Surely not! Saturday is for thinking!

Not if you were out drinking, Friday night."

Im not hungover i only had a few bottles last night,my brain hurts today

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Consistency vs hypocrisy ....

People's views and opinions change over time, but that's often a case of becoming more worldly, and experienced.

As long as your current beliefs are consistent and not flip flopping all over the place.

Be true to yourself, not someone else "

It also takes time to assimilate new learnings and ideas and make everything fit

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

People often lose their consistency when they don't benefit from it.

I believe, to be totally consistent, one has to be self-sacrificing.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I'd like to start by saying this is not a political discussion. It's a general discussion about consistency. It just happened to be politics that got me thinking about it.

I was watching Real Time and he had Breitbart editor Milo Yiannoppoulos on as a guest. While talking, Milo, who was called out by Bill for being a gay Catholic conservative, said: "It's a characteristic of the modern left, I think, requiring this absolute consistency, and forgetting that people are messy and complicated."

This quote really struck me. To me, consistency is something I value very highly. Not only do I find it indispensable to rational debate, but I also find it directional for life in general.

Here is my question - what do you think about consistency? For debating and for life in general. Is it a liberal idea? Or is it important more generally?

I have to admit that I was slightly horrified by the casual way in which consistency was tossed aside.

-Courtney

I think consistency is almost impossible. One set of your beliefs is bound to clash with another.

Ie I am very much believe in forgiveness, I also think corporal and capital punishment has a place in the justice system.

I'm dead against using drugs, but I think they should be legal.

To have consistent beliefs would require a dogmatic approach to life."

Those people end up running cults.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *uckandbunnyCouple
over a year ago

In your bed


"

To have consistent beliefs would require a dogmatic approach to life.

Those people end up running cults. "

I was thinking of starting a cult, but I'd hate to be in charge.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"I dont understand the bloody question?consistencyof what? Custard?

Consistency in your beliefs. How you rationalize things. How you act.

I think you can be consistent but have idiosyncrasies which might take appear consistent to others but not to you.... That's my take on messy. I can be a total libtard on some things yet hate everything to do with modern feminism and I'm pro free market capitalism. All are attached to a consistent philosophy but it takes a lot of effort to explain how they are not inconsistent.

I like milo, he is very smart. "

See, it's that consistent philosophy that I find important. You can have beliefs that are a mixture of various other systems so long as your internal logic or philosophy is consistent. What Milo was saying was directly contrary to that. He was saying internal consistency is overrated. I think it was a devious way to explain away his own inconsistencies.

He is a smooth guy. I expected a better response to Bill than what he offered. But I think his decrying of consistency represents a lot of people's views today. But I think its problematic.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *uckandbunnyCouple
over a year ago

In your bed


"I dont understand the bloody question?consistencyof what? Custard?

Consistency in your beliefs. How you rationalize things. How you act.

I think you can be consistent but have idiosyncrasies which might take appear consistent to others but not to you.... That's my take on messy. I can be a total libtard on some things yet hate everything to do with modern feminism and I'm pro free market capitalism. All are attached to a consistent philosophy but it takes a lot of effort to explain how they are not inconsistent.

I like milo, he is very smart.

See, it's that consistent philosophy that I find important. You can have beliefs that are a mixture of various other systems so long as your internal logic or philosophy is consistent. What Milo was saying was directly contrary to that. He was saying internal consistency is overrated. I think it was a devious way to explain away his own inconsistencies.

He is a smooth guy. I expected a better response to Bill than what he offered. But I think his decrying of consistency represents a lot of people's views today. But I think its problematic. "

But is he being consistent with his inconsistency?

Or does he lapse into occasionally being consistent in his beliefs therefore not being consistent with his belief in inconsistency.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"I dont understand the bloody question?consistencyof what? Custard?

Consistency in your beliefs. How you rationalize things. How you act.

I think you can be consistent but have idiosyncrasies which might take appear consistent to others but not to you.... That's my take on messy. I can be a total libtard on some things yet hate everything to do with modern feminism and I'm pro free market capitalism. All are attached to a consistent philosophy but it takes a lot of effort to explain how they are not inconsistent.

I like milo, he is very smart.

See, it's that consistent philosophy that I find important. You can have beliefs that are a mixture of various other systems so long as your internal logic or philosophy is consistent. What Milo was saying was directly contrary to that. He was saying internal consistency is overrated. I think it was a devious way to explain away his own inconsistencies.

He is a smooth guy. I expected a better response to Bill than what he offered. But I think his decrying of consistency represents a lot of people's views today. But I think its problematic.

But is he being consistent with his inconsistency?

Or does he lapse into occasionally being consistent in his beliefs therefore not being consistent with his belief in inconsistency. "

The latter.

In any case, it wasn't his consistency I was concerned with per se. It was his (to me) astonishing claim that consistency isn't even required.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *uckandbunnyCouple
over a year ago

In your bed


"I dont understand the bloody question?consistencyof what? Custard?

Consistency in your beliefs. How you rationalize things. How you act.

I think you can be consistent but have idiosyncrasies which might take appear consistent to others but not to you.... That's my take on messy. I can be a total libtard on some things yet hate everything to do with modern feminism and I'm pro free market capitalism. All are attached to a consistent philosophy but it takes a lot of effort to explain how they are not inconsistent.

I like milo, he is very smart.

See, it's that consistent philosophy that I find important. You can have beliefs that are a mixture of various other systems so long as your internal logic or philosophy is consistent. What Milo was saying was directly contrary to that. He was saying internal consistency is overrated. I think it was a devious way to explain away his own inconsistencies.

He is a smooth guy. I expected a better response to Bill than what he offered. But I think his decrying of consistency represents a lot of people's views today. But I think its problematic.

But is he being consistent with his inconsistency?

Or does he lapse into occasionally being consistent in his beliefs therefore not being consistent with his belief in inconsistency.

The latter.

In any case, it wasn't his consistency I was concerned with per se. It was his (to me) astonishing claim that consistency isn't even required."

Most of the time it's not.

I'm probably only consistent with my partner. Everyone else's gets different degrees of inconsistency.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I think I know what you're on about.

When debating, arguing or just discussing something you would like the other person to be consistent in their views. (I think)

I am not so concerned about this. I think it's ok for people to change their views and opinions if they have listened to you and accepted the argument put before them.

I don't mean when people change their views in the face of new facts or argumentation. I mean when people hold simultaneous contradictory beliefs.

For example, the guy who said the quote, Milo, decried religion, but made an exception for Catholicism (his own religion). He actually believe consistency isn't important. I don't understand how to debate against someone who will hold contradictory beliefs simultaneously.

I guess I did a poor job of explaining in my OP. Sorry. "

Oh I see, I got the wrong end of the stick

Does someone have contradictory beliefs on a subject to make it fit in / right with their own thought process?

After yesterday's Go Fund Me Thread I found I was having contradictory beliefs, on one hand I thought it was wrong to ask for money on the other hand my mind was changed by the different scenarios.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

You lost me at start of second sentence.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Anything I've seen from him has been reasonably consistent but then again he is an outliner and by definition inconsistent with societal expectation.

The flamboyant gay man who attacks rather than snuggling up to the feministas

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *igeiaWoman
over a year ago

Bristol


"If you were consistent in your beliefs you'd be crossing the road, arguing with people in shops or stopping people to almost enforce your views. Turning the other cheek let's us navigate life without endangering it. Though I suppose if asked we would still have the same view if ever asked , just not outwardly spoken?

But that's my point. The breitbart editor was saying there isn't a need to hold consistent views internally. That it's a liberal obsession.

Keep in mind he is a very influential person. I'm wondering if this is a commonly held belief...."

I think there is a need to hold consistent views internally. Or at least accept and be amused by the fact that you are capable of cognitive dissonance as a rational and logical human being if you don't. But then I am a liberal so according to him I would think that.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Anything I've seen from him has been reasonably consistent but then again he is an outliner and by definition inconsistent with societal expectation.

The flamboyant gay man who attacks rather than snuggling up to the feministas "

Except for two things. First, he is a gay Catholic, which is in itself a logical inconsistency.

And second, it was him I was quoting who said absolute consistency is a liberal idea.

Whether he is generally consistent or not, he posited the idea that consistency isn't necessary. My question then is whether you find that problematic or if you agree with him?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Rules are often too rigid to accommodate our differences as people.

I don't agree with a lot of what Milo says but I can't help but like him.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"If you were consistent in your beliefs you'd be crossing the road, arguing with people in shops or stopping people to almost enforce your views. Turning the other cheek let's us navigate life without endangering it. Though I suppose if asked we would still have the same view if ever asked , just not outwardly spoken?

But that's my point. The breitbart editor was saying there isn't a need to hold consistent views internally. That it's a liberal obsession.

Keep in mind he is a very influential person. I'm wondering if this is a commonly held belief....

I think there is a need to hold consistent views internally. Or at least accept and be amused by the fact that you are capable of cognitive dissonance as a rational and logical human being if you don't. But then I am a liberal so according to him I would think that. "

This was generally my reaction. It seems from this thread that it's a more generally held view than I initially thought, though. Which is exactly what I wanted to get a sense of from the thread.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I was going to give a well thought out answer...

... But then I remembered that I just consistently think the guy is a wanker and his behaviour irritates me to the point of rage.

So... I'm going to have a cup of tea instead.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Anything I've seen from him has been reasonably consistent but then again he is an outliner and by definition inconsistent with societal expectation.

The flamboyant gay man who attacks rather than snuggling up to the feministas

Except for two things. First, he is a gay Catholic, which is in itself a logical inconsistency.

And second, it was him I was quoting who said absolute consistency is a liberal idea.

Whether he is generally consistent or not, he posited the idea that consistency isn't necessary. My question then is whether you find that problematic or if you agree with him?"

That's you imposing your expectations surely? I can understand someone who has religious beliefs but finds themselves to be gay. It seems very closed mind to call that inconsistency.

It would be inconsistent if he thought he himself was evil perhaps and was denouncing other gay people. I imagine that he has an internal philosophy on that which doesn't change like the wind.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I was going to give a well thought out answer...

... But then I remembered that I just consistently think the guy is a wanker and his behaviour irritates me to the point of rage.

So... I'm going to have a cup of tea instead."

takes lot for a person with a big following to be given the boot from Twitter yet he managed it.

Attention seeking arse

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

What do we now mean by being liberal? I consider my views to be very liberal but I don't agree with what a lot of "liberals" agree with. Is there somewhere which describes the general stance well?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Anything I've seen from him has been reasonably consistent but then again he is an outliner and by definition inconsistent with societal expectation.

The flamboyant gay man who attacks rather than snuggling up to the feministas

Except for two things. First, he is a gay Catholic, which is in itself a logical inconsistency.

And second, it was him I was quoting who said absolute consistency is a liberal idea.

Whether he is generally consistent or not, he posited the idea that consistency isn't necessary. My question then is whether you find that problematic or if you agree with him?

That's you imposing your expectations surely? I can understand someone who has religious beliefs but finds themselves to be gay. It seems very closed mind to call that inconsistency.

It would be inconsistent if he thought he himself was evil perhaps and was denouncing other gay people. I imagine that he has an internal philosophy on that which doesn't change like the wind. "

No, because he isn't just a gay religious person. He is a gay Catholic. That is inconsistent because that religion has a strong dogma. It's It's logical inconsistency. It he held the views in your second paragraph that would be hypocrisy.

Anyway, I don't understand why you're arguing whether he is consistent. Bill presented him with his own inconsistency and he didn't defend himself. Instead, he decried consistency as a liberal requirement.

So my question isn't about his own consistency, it's about his more general claim about the important of consistency itself.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

He says he's Catholic but he's also a Jew because his mother is Jewish. Despite this, people call him a NAZI.

l don't particularly like Bill Maher and his sycophantic audience. And does anyone else think he looks Like Lieutenant Commander Data (from TNG) that has been has been hosed with a CO2 fire extinguisher?

Politics is far too tribal and partisan tbh.

l don't think 'consistent' is the right term to use. That implies an unmovable/unchanging mode of thinking on a timescale. Life is inconsistent and as a result so are we: all of us.

l cherry pick my views from across the spectrum, as long as they don't contradict each other in ways that cannot be defended.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I was going to give a well thought out answer...

... But then I remembered that I just consistently think the guy is a wanker and his behaviour irritates me to the point of rage.

So... I'm going to have a cup of tea instead.

takes lot for a person with a big following to be given the boot from Twitter yet he managed it.

Attention seeking arse"

More so the feminists ganged up to have him removed?

What is so bad about him?

I haven't seen anything from him post trump so maybe my ignorance is bliss. Previously I've admired his rationality.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"He says he's Catholic but he's also a Jew because his mother is Jewish. Despite this, people call him a NAZI.

l don't particularly like Bill Maher and his sycophantic audience. And does anyone else think he looks Like Lieutenant Commander Data (from TNG) that has been has been hosed with a CO2 fire extinguisher?

Politics is far too tribal and partisan tbh.

l don't think 'consistent' is the right term to use. That implies an unmovable/unchanging mode of thinking on a timescale. Life is inconsistent and as a result so are we: all of us.

l cherry pick my views from across the spectrum, as long as they don't contradict each other in ways that cannot be defended.

"

For once we agree ??

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"What do we now mean by being liberal? I consider my views to be very liberal but I don't agree with what a lot of "liberals" agree with. Is there somewhere which describes the general stance well? "

Considering it was him who used the word, I would suggest looking to his writings to get a sense of how he was using the term liberal.

Because he was on an American political comedy show, I took him as meaning "liberal" in the American political sense. Correct me if I'm wrong, though.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

Can I just remind people this isn't meant to be a political discussion? I'm really just trying to get a feel for people's viewd on the importance (or not) of consistency.

If people keep making it political it's going to be banished to the politics forum and what I'm really asking won't be addressed.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Anything I've seen from him has been reasonably consistent but then again he is an outliner and by definition inconsistent with societal expectation.

The flamboyant gay man who attacks rather than snuggling up to the feministas

Except for two things. First, he is a gay Catholic, which is in itself a logical inconsistency.

And second, it was him I was quoting who said absolute consistency is a liberal idea.

Whether he is generally consistent or not, he posited the idea that consistency isn't necessary. My question then is whether you find that problematic or if you agree with him?

That's you imposing your expectations surely? I can understand someone who has religious beliefs but finds themselves to be gay. It seems very closed mind to call that inconsistency.

It would be inconsistent if he thought he himself was evil perhaps and was denouncing other gay people. I imagine that he has an internal philosophy on that which doesn't change like the wind.

No, because he isn't just a gay religious person. He is a gay Catholic. That is inconsistent because that religion has a strong dogma. It's It's logical inconsistency. It he held the views in your second paragraph that would be hypocrisy.

Anyway, I don't understand why you're arguing whether he is consistent. Bill presented him with his own inconsistency and he didn't defend himself. Instead, he decried consistency as a liberal requirement.

So my question isn't about his own consistency, it's about his more general claim about the important of consistency itself."

Come on Courtney....

Does it have to be binary? (I hate myself for using that word.... )

Taken to the logical extension do you expect catholics to attack gay people in the street?! Everyone adopts their own variation of their religious... Except for the extremists

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"What do we now mean by being liberal? I consider my views to be very liberal but I don't agree with what a lot of "liberals" agree with. Is there somewhere which describes the general stance well?

Considering it was him who used the word, I would suggest looking to his writings to get a sense of how he was using the term liberal.

Because he was on an American political comedy show, I took him as meaning "liberal" in the American political sense. Correct me if I'm wrong, though."

I'm genuinely just asking in the general fashion... I'm totally new to all this political stuff, I just know what I think

Are there different versions of "liberal", surely that's inconsistent?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Anything I've seen from him has been reasonably consistent but then again he is an outliner and by definition inconsistent with societal expectation.

The flamboyant gay man who attacks rather than snuggling up to the feministas

Except for two things. First, he is a gay Catholic, which is in itself a logical inconsistency.

And second, it was him I was quoting who said absolute consistency is a liberal idea.

Whether he is generally consistent or not, he posited the idea that consistency isn't necessary. My question then is whether you find that problematic or if you agree with him?

That's you imposing your expectations surely? I can understand someone who has religious beliefs but finds themselves to be gay. It seems very closed mind to call that inconsistency.

It would be inconsistent if he thought he himself was evil perhaps and was denouncing other gay people. I imagine that he has an internal philosophy on that which doesn't change like the wind.

No, because he isn't just a gay religious person. He is a gay Catholic. That is inconsistent because that religion has a strong dogma. It's It's logical inconsistency. It he held the views in your second paragraph that would be hypocrisy.

Anyway, I don't understand why you're arguing whether he is consistent. Bill presented him with his own inconsistency and he didn't defend himself. Instead, he decried consistency as a liberal requirement.

So my question isn't about his own consistency, it's about his more general claim about the important of consistency itself.

Come on Courtney....

Does it have to be binary? (I hate myself for using that word.... )

Taken to the logical extension do you expect catholics to attack gay people in the street?! Everyone adopts their own variation of their religious... Except for the extremists "

Again, you're not addressing the point on consistency.

It being inconsistent to be gay and a catholic just IS. I don't make the rules of the Catholic church. The pope does. And last I checked it still wasn't consistent with Catholic dogma. Because the pope hasn't called a new Crusade I assume attacking gay people would also be inconsistent with Catholic dogma. Check with the pope, though. I'm not a Catholic anymore.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I think if you're unwilling to consider a challenge to the consistency of long held opinions you'll bring a blinkered view that dilutes the value of anything you add too debate.....

That's all I've got...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ittle_brat_evie!!Woman
over a year ago

evesham


"I dont understand the bloody question?consistencyof what? Custard?

Consistency in your beliefs. How you rationalize things. How you act."

But as we learn things and experience things our beliefs change and adapt surely?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"I dont understand the bloody question?consistencyof what? Custard?

Consistency in your beliefs. How you rationalize things. How you act.

But as we learn things and experience things our beliefs change and adapt surely? "

As I explained above, I'm talking about logical consistency, not unchaging views over time.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consistency

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ittle_brat_evie!!Woman
over a year ago

evesham


"I dont understand the bloody question?consistencyof what? Custard?

Consistency in your beliefs. How you rationalize things. How you act.

But as we learn things and experience things our beliefs change and adapt surely?

As I explained above, I'm talking about logical consistency, not unchaging views over time.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consistency"

To be fair I only read to that post.

Logical constancy can change with advancing knowledge and intelligence. It was logical to assume the world was flat at one time. Advances in science have proved its not.

In terms of religious beliefs, they are based in interpretation of text and so cannot by definition be a consistent thing.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I don't know Courtney. I think you are letting your dislike for him colour your logic. I think it's very clear that many people believe in God in the Catholic version of the story but respect homosexuality.

You could call half of Ireland intellectually inconsistent on those terms but I imagine most people have rationalised the two parts of "homosexuality is normal" and "it's nice to be nice" into a laissez faire version of Catholicism

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I dont understand the bloody question?consistencyof what? Custard?

Consistency in your beliefs. How you rationalize things. How you act.

But as we learn things and experience things our beliefs change and adapt surely?

As I explained above, I'm talking about logical consistency, not unchaging views over time.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consistency"

Well how is him being gay and Catholic an inconsistency? ln their eyes it is a sin like any other and doesn't prevent salvation if he truly has faith in Jesus being his saviour. That's what l thought Christianity was about?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"I don't know Courtney. I think you are letting your dislike for him colour your logic. I think it's very clear that many people believe in God in the Catholic version of the story but respect homosexuality.

You could call half of Ireland intellectually inconsistent on those terms but I imagine most people have rationalised the two parts of "homosexuality is normal" and "it's nice to be nice" into a laissez faire version of Catholicism

"

I think you're being unfair in assuming I don't like him. Where did I say that?

I disagree with his claim about consistency. You're beliefs about Catholicism are tangential to the original question. And yes, I would call supermarket Catholics logically inconsistent. If thats half of Ireland then so be it.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

So many grandmother should denounce my gay cousin?

I think that's his point about liberals demanding consistency.... It flips on itself and seems almost fascist

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I don't know Courtney. I think you are letting your dislike for him colour your logic. I think it's very clear that many people believe in God in the Catholic version of the story but respect homosexuality.

You could call half of Ireland intellectually inconsistent on those terms but I imagine most people have rationalised the two parts of "homosexuality is normal" and "it's nice to be nice" into a laissez faire version of Catholicism

I think you're being unfair in assuming I don't like him. Where did I say that?

I disagree with his claim about consistency. You're beliefs about Catholicism are tangential to the original question. And yes, I would call supermarket Catholics logically inconsistent. If thats half of Ireland then so be it."

l don't think you understand Christian theology. l don't see the inconsistency there.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"So many grandmother should denounce my gay cousin?

I think that's his point about liberals demanding consistency.... It flips on itself and seems almost fascist "

I just stopped being Catholic when I noticed the inconsistencies. I didn't denounce my friends and family.

So you don't think consistency is important, then? You agree that we can have informed and logical debate without internal logical consistency? I'm genuinely asking a question. I'm not judging you.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I'm also not Catholic or religious, it's not consistent with my philosophy.

I think it's a poor starting point when you expect everything to be black and white, everyone has their own "sensible inconsistency"

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"So many grandmother should denounce my gay cousin?

I think that's his point about liberals demanding consistency.... It flips on itself and seems almost fascist "

l agree. l use the term ''liberal'' in a general sense but the liberal dogma tend to cannabilise itself. For instance the whole trans debate; for years we were told by feminists that the differences between males and females we mere social constructs caused by the Patriarchy *dum dum dum* then the 'T' in LGBT came along and said ''no, l have a female brain. l am woman trapped inside a male form''. Now that's an inconsistency.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"I'm also not Catholic or religious, it's not consistent with my philosophy.

I think it's a poor starting point when you expect everything to be black and white, everyone has their own "sensible inconsistency"

"

What constitutes sensible inconsistency, then? Is there a guiding principle to keep it from being anything that justifies how someone feels on a certain topic?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

To answer the question, yes absolutely it must be internally consistent and explainable.

I imagine his point is about people assuming rather than asking the questions and listening to the deeper level answers.

Like those arsehole students in the states trying to airhorn block his debates (they are a disgrace to free speech)

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"To answer the question, yes absolutely it must be internally consistent and explainable.

I imagine his point is about people assuming rather than asking the questions and listening to the deeper level answers.

Like those arsehole students in the states trying to airhorn block his debates (they are a disgrace to free speech) "

To your second paragraph, no that wash his point. Watch theintervoew, it was actually rather interesting.

To your third paragraph, I agree.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

Holy crap, my last post wasn't comprehensible

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *iamondjoeMan
over a year ago

Glastonbury

Two things:

1/ As discussed, there is a growing tendency to judge a book by its cover and read what you want from between selected lines, whilst being reinforced in those beliefs within an echo chamber.

2/ I've noticed that humans can hold utterly contradictory ideas in their heads at the same time quite easily.

The idea that one might critically analyse a questions, reason, rethink and reshape views in the light if new evidence is getting rarer.

It's simpler to shout and tell everyone else they're wrong.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"To answer the question, yes absolutely it must be internally consistent and explainable.

I imagine his point is about people assuming rather than asking the questions and listening to the deeper level answers.

Like those arsehole students in the states trying to airhorn block his debates (they are a disgrace to free speech)

To your second paragraph, no that wasn't his point. Watch the interview, it was actually rather interesting.

To your third paragraph, I agree. "

Fixed

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

You you've made a good point when people don't want to try and refute them.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Two things:

1/ As discussed, there is a growing tendency to judge a book by its cover and read what you want from between selected lines, whilst being reinforced in those beliefs within an echo chamber.

2/ I've noticed that humans can hold utterly contradictory ideas in their heads at the same time quite easily.

The idea that one might critically analyse a questions, reason, rethink and reshape views in the light if new evidence is getting rarer.

It's simpler to shout and tell everyone else they're wrong."

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I was going to give a well thought out answer...

... But then I remembered that I just consistently think the guy is a wanker and his behaviour irritates me to the point of rage.

So... I'm going to have a cup of tea instead.

takes lot for a person with a big following to be given the boot from Twitter yet he managed it.

Attention seeking arse"

I would imagine it was due to the many private messages that he sent out to people.

Certainly I like to think that the ones he sent me (regarding gamergate) ended up in the pile of reports that got rid of him.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"I was going to give a well thought out answer...

... But then I remembered that I just consistently think the guy is a wanker and his behaviour irritates me to the point of rage.

So... I'm going to have a cup of tea instead.

takes lot for a person with a big following to be given the boot from Twitter yet he managed it.

Attention seeking arse

I would imagine it was due to the many private messages that he sent out to people.

Certainly I like to think that the ones he sent me (regarding gamergate) ended up in the pile of reports that got rid of him."

I personally like to debate people I don't agree with when they are capable of a rational and calm debate.

The more rage we promote the less our rational ideas are heard. It does yourself a disservice. No?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *iamondjoeMan
over a year ago

Glastonbury


"Two things:

1/ As discussed, there is a growing tendency to judge a book by its cover and read what you want from between selected lines, whilst being reinforced in those beliefs within an echo chamber.

2/ I've noticed that humans can hold utterly contradictory ideas in their heads at the same time quite easily.

The idea that one might critically analyse a questions, reason, rethink and reshape views in the light if new evidence is getting rarer.

It's simpler to shout and tell everyone else they're wrong.

"

This not good

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I'm also not Catholic or religious, it's not consistent with my philosophy.

I think it's a poor starting point when you expect everything to be black and white, everyone has their own "sensible inconsistency"

What constitutes sensible inconsistency, then? Is there a guiding principle to keep it from being anything that justifies how someone feels on a certain topic?"

Going back to what we said, internally consistent with clear logic to connect it to a core philosophy.

For example I hate Feminism because I've always viewed women as equal and love them and see it as patronising to everyone.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I was going to give a well thought out answer...

... But then I remembered that I just consistently think the guy is a wanker and his behaviour irritates me to the point of rage.

So... I'm going to have a cup of tea instead.

takes lot for a person with a big following to be given the boot from Twitter yet he managed it.

Attention seeking arse

I would imagine it was due to the many private messages that he sent out to people.

Certainly I like to think that the ones he sent me (regarding gamergate) ended up in the pile of reports that got rid of him.

I personally like to debate people I don't agree with when they are capable of a rational and calm debate.

The more rage we promote the less our rational ideas are heard. It does yourself a disservice. No?"

I debated his ideas in a thesis that was awarded an academic prize.

He took umbrage at my words.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Two things:

1/ As discussed, there is a growing tendency to judge a book by its cover and read what you want from between selected lines, whilst being reinforced in those beliefs within an echo chamber.

2/ I've noticed that humans can hold utterly contradictory ideas in their heads at the same time quite easily.

The idea that one might critically analyse a questions, reason, rethink and reshape views in the light if new evidence is getting rarer.

It's simpler to shout and tell everyone else they're wrong.

This not good"

No it isn't. But I agree with what you wrote.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"I was going to give a well thought out answer...

... But then I remembered that I just consistently think the guy is a wanker and his behaviour irritates me to the point of rage.

So... I'm going to have a cup of tea instead.

takes lot for a person with a big following to be given the boot from Twitter yet he managed it.

Attention seeking arse

I would imagine it was due to the many private messages that he sent out to people.

Certainly I like to think that the ones he sent me (regarding gamergate) ended up in the pile of reports that got rid of him.

I personally like to debate people I don't agree with when they are capable of a rational and calm debate.

The more rage we promote the less our rational ideas are heard. It does yourself a disservice. No?

I debated his ideas in a thesis that was awarded an academic prize.

He took umbrage at my words."

I meant more that it would be interesting to hear your thoughts here.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"So many grandmother should denounce my gay cousin?

I think that's his point about liberals demanding consistency.... It flips on itself and seems almost fascist

l agree. l use the term ''liberal'' in a general sense but the liberal dogma tend to cannabilise itself. For instance the whole trans debate; for years we were told by feminists that the differences between males and females we mere social constructs caused by the Patriarchy *dum dum dum* then the 'T' in LGBT came along and said ''no, l have a female brain. l am woman trapped inside a male form''. Now that's an inconsistency."

Don't get me started on gender is only a social construct.

Taking the science out of "social science"

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Bbeing able to consistently adapt to change is important I think.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *agneto.Man
over a year ago

Bham

Is this in a debate or over time? I value people who might change their mind over time and are not fixed in one mindset.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I was going to give a well thought out answer...

... But then I remembered that I just consistently think the guy is a wanker and his behaviour irritates me to the point of rage.

So... I'm going to have a cup of tea instead.

takes lot for a person with a big following to be given the boot from Twitter yet he managed it.

Attention seeking arse

I would imagine it was due to the many private messages that he sent out to people.

Certainly I like to think that the ones he sent me (regarding gamergate) ended up in the pile of reports that got rid of him.

I personally like to debate people I don't agree with when they are capable of a rational and calm debate.

The more rage we promote the less our rational ideas are heard. It does yourself a disservice. No?

I debated his ideas in a thesis that was awarded an academic prize.

He took umbrage at my words.

I meant more that it would be interesting to hear your thoughts here. "

While I try and maintain cool logic and consistency in my views and actions, reconciling my faith and my lifestyle has been somewhat difficult.

I'm ok with that. I am a person who is deeply flawed. but nobody is perfect.

Consistency is really important to me in my views. I am an active political campaigner and if I figure something new out (or some to understand something differently than before) then I try and change my lifestyle to be more in tune with those views. I don't always get there, but I try.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top