|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
 Posted - 04/28/2006 : 04:58:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
In Ohio it is 18 for straights and 21 for gays. Those are the laws that gay rights activists want changed. They don't want the legal right to screw children. They wants the same rights as everyone else.
So in this particular case, according to James Dobson, being 18, 19, or 20 makes you a child.
pedophilia: sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object
Spin for Jesus. Keep the outrage high and the coffers full.
|
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
 |
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 04/28/2006 : 07:25:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
quote:
Originally posted by Snake
Bill, you are right, and if people were honest they'd admit they can't treat everyone equal every time.
A bigot is someone who favors his own group and what's wrong with that? It happens all the time. Buddies are always going to stick together. Gee, just thinking, it happens on this very site, often.
big·ot (bgt)
n.
One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
Bigot \Big"ot\, n. [F. bigot a bigot or hypocrite, a name once
given to the Normans in France. Of unknown origin; possibly
akin to Sp. bigote a whisker; hombre de bigote a man of
spirit and vigor; cf. It. s-bigottire to terrify, to appall.
Wedgwood and others maintain that bigot is from the same
source as Beguine, Beghard.]
1. A hypocrite; esp., a superstitious hypocrite. [Obs.]
2. A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of
religion as unquestionably right, and any belief or
opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable
or wicked. In an extended sense, a person who is
intolerant of opinions which conflict with his own, as in
politics or morals; one obstinately and blindly devoted to
his own church, party, belief, or opinion.
in·tol·er·ant
adj.
Not tolerant, especially:
1) Unwilling to tolerate differences in opinions, practices, or beliefs, especially religious beliefs.
2) Opposed to the inclusion or participation of those different from oneself, especially those of a different racial, ethnic, or social background.
3) Unable or unwilling to endure or support: intolerant of interruptions; a community intolerant of crime.
(emphasis mine)
Your definition is a bit off.
Holding strictly to those standards makes us all Bigots and intolerant of someone. And by these standards those who claim not to be bigoted or intolerant of anything or anyone are just liars on top of being an intolerant bigot. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 04/28/2006 : 07:56:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Holding strictly to those standards makes us all Bigots and intolerant of someone. And by these standards those who claim not to be bigoted or intolerant of anything or anyone are just liars on top of being an intolerant bigot.
Bill : but a bigot is certainly more than "...someone who favors his own group" or "Buddies are always going to stick together."
And I would agree, if you read that definition literally ( I'm sure you do ;-) ), then everyone, even Jesus Christ and god, are bigots.
But I think we know what we are really talking about... |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 04/28/2006 : 08:58:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
Holding strictly to those standards makes us all Bigots and intolerant of someone. And by these standards those who claim not to be bigoted or intolerant of anything or anyone are just liars on top of being an intolerant bigot.
I think Bill actually has a valid point here. The definition doesn't give the whole picture. It leaves out the viciousness and hate implied by the the word. |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 04/28/2006 : 11:14:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
quote:
Holding strictly to those standards makes us all Bigots and intolerant of someone. And by these standards those who claim not to be bigoted or intolerant of anything or anyone are just liars on top of being an intolerant bigot.
Bill : but a bigot is certainly more than "...someone who favors his own group" or "Buddies are always going to stick together."
And I would agree, if you read that definition literally ( I'm sure you do ;-) ), then everyone, even Jesus Christ and god, are bigots.
But I think we know what we are really talking about...
quote:
Bill : but a bigot is certainly more than "...someone who favors his own group" or "Buddies are always going to stick together."
(bill) That was not me that you were quoting.
quote:
And I would agree, if you read that definition literally ( I'm sure you do ;-) ), then everyone, even Jesus Christ and god, are bigots.
(bill) Really? I thought they did not exist?
quote:
But I think we know what we are really talking about...
(bill) I know what I was talking about and that was the over-use of the word bigot and how that has desensatized most when they here that accusation fly today. It's like yelling "fire" several times during a movie. The more you yell it the less people will even take you seriously. When people begin their tirad off with bigot this and bigot that many will just turn the page to the next story and won't even bat an eye since they heard the same accusations seveal times this week already. Blah, Blah, Blah, is all they are hearing...
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 04/28/2006 : 15:51:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
(bill) That was not me that you were quoting.
Oops, that's right it was Snake, I apologize.
quote:
(bill) Really? I thought they did not exist?
Of course jesus and god exist, the bible tells me so.  Actually, the ideas called "jesus" and "god" do exist and are described in the bible, so therefore I can ascribe the word "bigot" if those ideas fit the literal definition. But you knew this is what I was talking about anyway, so I'm not sure why you responded like that unless you were trying to be funny.
|
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 04/28/2006 : 23:55:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
big·ot (bgt)
n.
People who post definitions are so nerdy. I usually don't read them but this is a very good example of why they are a waste of time.
It's a given that someone who likes one group more than another doesn't care for the other. The reply post is just pointing out the obvious.
The post didn't address the main point of the post it was answering (that there is nothing wrong with liking ones own group more).
Unless it was just meant to be redundant. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 04/29/2006 : 02:12:02 [Permalink]
|
You're posting on a discussion forum, which is nerdy enough, but posting on a skeptic forum is the height of nerdiness, so nerd is kind of what most of us strive for here.
|
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 04/29/2006 : 05:30:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Snake
People who post definitions are so nerdy. I usually don't read them but this is a very good example of why they are a waste of time.
It's a given that someone who likes one group more than another doesn't care for the other. The reply post is just pointing out the obvious.
The post didn't address the main point of the post it was answering (that there is nothing wrong with liking ones own group more).
Unless it was just meant to be redundant.
Why, thank you. Next time, don't use words you don't know the defintions for. You show your ignorance. I wasn't addressing the main point, just your incorrect use of the word bigot. The term bigot means more than "one group not liking another." Your definition dilutes the meaning of the word.
Nah, just next time don't read the post. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
| Edited by - pleco on 04/29/2006 05:34:35 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 04/29/2006 : 09:10:51 [Permalink]
|
Matt wrote: quote:
I agree that they are discriminated against. Though I'm not sure it's as extreme as you make out.
I consider the things I put on the list to be extreme. But that was only me giving examples of institutionalized discrimination. Then there is the social discrimination that occurs in all the highly religious communities of America, which Humbert described well: quote:
Of course, any gay children these people produce will basically be born into a nightmare of scorn, humiliation, self-loathing, and most likely eventual ostracism.
And it is the social attitudes that perpetuate the institutionalized discrimination.
quote:
Okay, but doesn't Cracker Barrel having a no-gays hiring policy mean that the policy makers at Cracker Barrel are bigots. What's the connection to the fundies of the OP? Same with the military example.
Maybe you missed it, but earlier in this thread I pointed out that the parent group that started the “Day of Truth” is an organization that on its website denounces legal gay marriage. As people who endorse not only social discrimination, but legal discrimination, they are bigots.
quote:
I agree that it's a distasteful hang up that they have. I guess the problem I have with calling them bigots is that many of them are actually well intentioned but misinformed. The word bigot just seems unnessessarily divisive.
One of my favorite clichés is “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.” It took me 5 minutes to find out that the Day of Truth was promoted by a religious right organization that opposes gay marriage. And ANYONE who acts on behalf of an organization is responsible for knowing about the issues they are then endorsing through association. Bigotry through ignorance is still ignorance. Also, in a society where almost everyone is literate, there are free libraries with access to not only books, but the Internet, being “misinformed” is no excuse.
As for accusations of bigotry being divisive, I don't think so. My using that word, I'm criticizing a specific religiously motivated opinion regarding homosexuality, as well as a specific set of political stances regarding gay rights. I'm not criticizing a whole religious sect. And specific irrational beliefs, especially bigoted ones, need to be criticized. If someone is called bigoted, and they have a conscience, they might be curious as to why that person is calling them bigoted. They might try to see it from the other point of view. But also, what is the alternative? Holding their hand as we lead them through what they should be doing on their own? Saying “bigot” demands attention. It brings the issue to the forefront. And unless it is an exaggeration (which I hold it is not) it is not unethical to take that approach when dealing with this issue.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 04/29/2006 : 09:24:04 [Permalink]
|
Bill wrote: quote:
Holding strictly to those standards makes us all Bigots and intolerant of someone. And by these standards those who claim not to be bigoted or intolerant of anything or anyone are just liars on top of being an intolerant bigot.
You are a little off here, Bill. I will admit that I am intolerant toward intolerance. But I am not intolerant toward intolerant people. I think fundamentalist Christians should continue to have the rights of free speech, the freedom to proselytize, the freedom to live their lives according to their own morals and values. I even think they should have the freedom to lobby for laws that would force the rest of us to live the way they do.
If I were a bigot against bigots, I would have to be intolerant of you. That would mean I would want to restrict your freedom or equal rights in some way, somehow stop you from living the way you do, or from speaking your mind. But that is simply not the case.
Matt wrote: quote:
I think Bill actually has a valid point here. The definition doesn't give the whole picture. It leaves out the viciousness and hate implied by the the word.
Back when there was black and white segregation in America, there were plenty of white people who didn't hate blacks. But they did think segregation was good for society, and they did think interracial marriage should be prohibited. You don't have to be filled with hate and viciousness to be a bigot. We can't just get light on bigots because they have nice intentions. That just excuses their willful ignorance. People are responsible for their opinions and actions.
Maybe Bill is correct in saying that “bigotry” is overused in our society, but I don't think in reference to the gay issue that it is misused. For heck's sake – we're talking about a group of people who clearly do not have equal rights! Hundreds of gay people in America lose their jobs every year just because they are gay. They can't get any of the legal benefits of marriage, even when they've been committed partners for decades. This is an issue where the accusation of “bigotry” is perfectly appropriate.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 04/29/2006 : 10:42:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
I consider the things I put on the list to be extreme. But that was only me giving examples of institutionalized discrimination. Then there is the social discrimination that occurs in all the highly religious communities of America, which Humbert described well quote:
Of course, any gay children these people produce will basically be born into a nightmare of scorn, humiliation, self-loathing, and most likely eventual ostracism.
And it is the social attitudes that perpetuate the institutionalized discrimination.
I agree. Any discrimination is too much. There are degrees of discrimination though is all I'm saying. Maybe I misread your meaning but I took your use of the superlative 'incredible' to mean 'one of the worst examples of discrimination ever'.
quote:
Maybe you missed it, but earlier in this thread I pointed out that the parent group that started the “Day of Truth” is an organization that on its website denounces legal gay marriage. As people who endorse not only social discrimination, but legal discrimination, they are bigots.
I did see that. Look marf I understand advocacy. When you're fighting for a cause you believe in you need to be passionate to be effective. Someone in Iraq might call all Americans bigot with even greater justification than you have called all those who participate in the 'Day of Truth' bigots, but they'd still be factually wrong.
quote:
One of my favorite clichés is “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.” It took me 5 minutes to find out that the Day of Truth was promoted by a religious right organization that opposes gay marriage.
I'm sure most of them (day of truth machers) are against gay marriage so I doubt that that would be much of a revalation to them.quote:
And ANYONE who acts on behalf of an organization is responsible for knowing about the issues they are then endorsing through association.
Agreed.
quote:
Bigotry through ignorance is still ignorance bigotry.
My change but I think it's what you meant. I just can't see it as bigotry unless there's an element of viciousness or hate in there.
quote:
Also, in a society where almost everyone is literate, there are free libraries with access to not only books, but the Internet, being “misinformed” is no excuse.
Well it depends which books you read though doesn't it? The books that you read might be dismissed as propaganda by them. Just as you probably throw out those watchtower tracts without reading them.
quote:
As for accusations of bigotry bein |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 04/29/2006 : 11:08:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Matt wrote: quote:
I think Bill actually has a valid point here. The definition doesn't give the whole picture. It leaves out the viciousness and hate implied by the the word.
Back when there was black and white segregation in America, there were plenty of white people who didn't hate blacks. But they did think segregation was good for society, and they did think interracial marriage should be prohibited. You don't have to be filled with hate and viciousness to be a bigot. We can't just get light on bigots because they have nice intentions. That just excuses their willful ignorance. People are responsible for their opinions and actions.
It's clear we just have different ideas of what 'bigot' means then. I don't really see those people as bigots in the context of the times. By today's standards yes of course they'd be bigots but things are different now.
quote:
Maybe Bill is correct in saying that “bigotry” is overused in our society, but I don't think in reference to the gay issue that it is misused. For heck's sake – we're talking about a group of people who clearly do not have equal rights! Hundreds of gay people in America lose their jobs every year just because they are gay. They can't get any of the legal benefits of marriage, even when they've been committed partners for decades. This is an issue where the accusation of “bigotry” is perfectly appropriate.
I guess I just don't understand why everything that that stands in the way of gay rights must fit under the lable 'bigot'. Some things just don't rise to that level in my opinion. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 04/29/2006 : 15:19:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
I just can't see it as bigotry unless there's an element of viciousness or hate in there.
While dictionary definitions of words may lag a few years behind the times, the compilers do attempt to define words as they're being used by the general populace. This gives us a modicum of evidence that for most people, the word 'bigot' does not include implications of viciousness or hate.
To inject a bit of humor which is particularly apt:Bigot: One who is obstinately and zealously attached to an opinion that you do not entertain.
- Ambrose Bierce, The Cynic's Word Book, 1906 (later The Devil's Dictionary) |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 04/29/2006 : 16:11:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
I guess I just don't understand why everything that that stands in the way of gay rights must fit under the lable 'bigot'. Some things just don't rise to that level in my opinion.
Because people who don't get things the way they want, they call others names to make things worse than they are and change the spotlight to a different subject.
It's exactly what's happening with the illegal aliens in the USA who should be arrested and sent back but NO, they want to turn the situation around to those who know they are criminals, and call them racists to take away the fact that they are wrong.
It's easy to call someone a bigot or any other name when a person has their own flaws too.
I'm going shopping! |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
