On the Threshold of Bigotry

Oh for fuck's sake.... Fine then:Why should we NOT use the dictionary's definition? Bigotry:

quote:

---

1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
2. the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.

---

Intolerance:

quote:

---

1. lack of toleration; unwillingness or refusal to tolerate or respect contrary opinions or beliefs, persons of different races or backgrounds, etc.
2. incapacity or indisposition to bear or endure: intolerance to heat.
3. abnormal sensitivity or allergy to a food, drug, etc.
4. an intolerant act.

---

So... simply being disrespectful to a contrary opinion is a form of bigotry.And actually, that's what I think the threshold of bigotry is.... RESPECT. No, but a disrespectful disagreement does. What makes you a bigot is how disrespectful you are towards those whose opinions differ from your's. Not even close.... This is closer to my point. You see, I think that by marriage being between one man and one woman, gays don't have a right to marriage in the first place. I don't consider myself a bigot for making arguments that a right does not exist. Even according to your made up, I mean "explained", definition, I wouldn't be a bigot because I'm not denying them a right that they have. Its the same as me arguing that you don't have a right to give birth.Of course, there's more to my argument than the definition of the word, but its not for this thread.Now, even if I am wrong, and we find out that gays had a right to marriage all along, I wouldn't be be a bigot according to your definition because I haven't ACTED in any way to deny them their right. I made arguments that the right didn't exist in the first place. I think we're all bigots, even you. The only person who is not a bigot is the one who is completely tolerant and respectful of everyone else's opinions. Since everyone is not at some time, we all have some amount of bigotry in us.I don't think the question of bigotry is a yes/no question. I think that its a more of a continuum of who is more bigoted and who is less. People who are respectful of other poeple's opinions are less bigoted than those who go around calling each other "fucking homophobic bigots".But honestly, I know that I can be bigoted. And I'm not ashamed of it.

It was. Laissez-faire is a rational approach that arises when the preparedness to compromise outweighs the desire to have particular aspects of your ideology hold sway.War is a rational approach as well. It arises when compromise on points of ideology isn't considered desirable.- That's a fair enough point. Although I wonder did Martin Luther King have a rationale for stating what he believed was the case. If not, then it would go to show that irrational ideologies can be powerful agents of change.- I don't believe that there is such a thing as independant and objective arbitration. Every democracy is assembled from the ideological parts-bin of the people that established (and continue to modify) it. The mechanisms you describe are the very battlegrounds on which the fight takes place: in the courts, in the media, in the legislature, on the juries heartstrings.Your own ideologies interests leak from the page here by the way. You seek to have your own and all other ideologies agree to bow to the objective-outsider. This, in order that all ideologies will have equal and communally protected recourse to expression. All because you see this as the best way to have expression of your ideology protectedBut there is no account taken of an ideology prepared for war - one which will, in other words, utilise the instruments of state to it's own best advantage - just as it expects it's ideological opponants to do.- Forgive me if some won't think you a Patsy in that case. They'll be out lobbying the judge the day before the hearing, while you sit on your hands in hope of an objective bite of the cherry.- You never heard of the trick whereby you cut the cake obviously disproportionately - whilst angling the knife sharply into the larger piece and so delivering more to the side of the 'smaller' portion. Present top surface of the cake to your brother and...If your ideology is worth anything then it's worth fighting to have the biggest piece of the expression-of-ideology cake. To settle for a happy medium without a fight would signify an ideology consisting of tenets which are not worth fighting for. Don't push the greed analogy though - for it's not about greed - the ideology might well be about what a person figures is best for society at large. We all (if at all) have a right to do what we think is best for society at large.- Not at all - simply because it wouldn't be possible (nor necessarily desirable). This doesn't mean that you should approach things in a completely laissez-faire fashion however. War when war is best /compromise when compromise is best / laissez -faire when it doesn't matter enough to suffer the others.- The history of the world says otherwise. Empires spanning centuries have come and gone and have been sustained through a warfare / needs-must diplomacy approach. But you've acknowledged as much here ...- Another unavoidable aspect of humankind. We forget the lessons of history (hence the Bibles wisdom about there being nothing new under the sun) For sure, we can read about the past and understand it in a "head sense". But it tends to be exposure to the actual horror of war, seared into the collective consciousness, that would scrabble to seek ways to avoid going there again. And only that that would sustain those ways for a season. All until the horror dissolves from memory and present day needs and desires come bubbling back up to the surface. The cycle repeats simply because the nature of human beings doesn't change.- It's not a matter of choice for there is no choice. The way you propose simply isn't the way the world actually works. You're swimming against the tide.Gay marriage lobbyists are currently emboiled in a battle to have gay marriage legalised in Ireland. The ideology they push is the very one you apply "equal rights for all". And they call those who fight against their ideology in order to have their own ideology hold sway homophobes and bigots.Perhaps all is fair in love and war.- Like I say, there is no choice about it. War and not peace governs mankinds spiritual makeup. It'll never be any different, not until Christ comes. It's not meant to be.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Objectively, marriage is a civil union between a man and a woman. What is subjective is to claim that legalized marriage should also be between same sexes. Hence, the subjectivity is all yours, my friend, just like the subjectivity of an owl who wishes to marry a pussycat in a nursery rhyme.I wonder why it was Jack and Jill who went that hill to fetch a pail of water. No nursery rhyme I ever heard of sent Chuck and Larry up the hill to do anything. And then there was Hansel and Gretel...”HM

---

If you got some quince, Pussycat, I got a runcible spoon.

double postEdited by iano, : No reason given.

As your arguemenst are no longer developing, my answers will not need to either. I can copy and paste my answers to your old questions if that's what you'd like: From Message 62

quote:

---

I've told you already that I am not doing this. I don't care about your definitions of words. What I care about is regulations.

---

quote:

---

We're not talking about the meanings of words. I don't know how to say that more clearly.

​

I'll say it again without using the word 'marry' this time, since you can't seem to get past that:

​

1. You agree that subjective regulations should be corrected.
2. The current regulation is that gays cannot get the same level of governmental recognition for the consentual relationship of their choice that straights can.
3. You cannot come up with an objective, rational reason why this regulation should exist.
4. Therefore, this is a subjective regulation.
5. Therefore (according to you, even) this regulation should be corrected so that both gays and straights can gain the same level of governmental recognition for the consentual relationship of their choice.
6. You continue to refuse that this regulation should be corrected. Even though it is subjectively in place, and you say that subjective regulations should be corrected.

​

Please note the intentional absence of the word 'marry'. No one cares about the definition of words. The issue is that there is a subjective regulation that should be corrected. You agree that subjective regulations should be corrected. Yet you do not agree that this subjective regulation should be corrected.

​

How do you explain this appearance of hypocrisy?

---

Do you have anything that hasn't already been answered? It's a rather silly and unproductive tactic to hold your fingers in your ears and repeat yourself over and over.

Oh for fuck's sake...I am using the dictionary's definition. It's not my fault that grasping the concept of "intolerance" is apparently beyond your capabilities.I am not intolerant of your opinion, Catholic Scientist. If I were, then I would be of the mind set that you should not be allowed to express that opinion. Spout your homophobic bigotry as loudly and as often as you want. I would not for a minute try to stop you. I will vehemently disagree with you, but I won't ever try to stop you from having and/or expressing that opinion. Jumpin jesus on a pogo stick, Catholic Scientist. How fucking convenient for you. Golly gee, since gays don't have the right to marry (and why is that CS?), I'm not a bigot for agreeing that gays don't have the right to marry. Talk about circular reasoning.But why do you think gays do not have the right to marry? One minute you're telling me that you're OK with gay marriage, and the next minute you're telling me that you don't think gays have the right to marry. Make up your mind, CS.But I digress. So again I ask...WHY? Why do you feel that marriage is only be between one man and one women. Who gets to decide such a thing? What makes your denial of the right for gays to marry a non-bigoted notion? And how can you say that they have no right to marry....that you don't feel they should have the right to marry...and yet not consider yourself a bigot? I've never claimed not to be bigoted. However, if we follow your logic, then everyone is bigoted about everything. If all it takes is for me to disagree with your opinion and I become a bigot, then like I've said before...the word becomes meaningless. Bullshit. But if it'll make you happy, I'll leave off the word "fucking". There, is that better. Suddenly now, you would consider me a lesser bigot if I refer to you (and NJ, AE, and HM) simply as "homophobic bigots" and not "fucking homophobic bigots"? Does this mean that now, in addition to a meaningless definition of bigotry, we also must include various levels of bigotry?

Apparently you missed the dictionary definition of tolerance in the post you replied too.... Here it is again: Intolerance:

quote:

---

1. lack of toleration; unwillingness or refusal to tolerate or respect contrary opinions or beliefs, persons of different races or backgrounds, etc.
2. incapacity or indisposition to bear or endure: intolerance to heat.
3. abnormal sensitivity or allergy to a food, drug, etc.
4. an intolerant act.

---

No, you are intolerant of my opinion, according to the dictionary's definition, because of your vehement disrespect towards my opinion. You are unwilling to respect my opinion. How is that not intolerance according to the definition above? Hrm.... so then, I would be a bigot for argueing that you don't have the right to give birth? Wait, you said the opposite in Message 102:

quote:

---

You see, here's the problem with you rather bizarre way of trying to get around being a bigot, simply because you feel that gays do not have the right to marry. Some things are simply not available to others. I cannot, for example, give birth. Therefore, you could not be considered a bigot if you felt that I do not have the right to give birth. I do not have that right because it is physically impossible to have that right.

---

You go on to say:

quote:

---

Gays, however, are in no way blocked from being allowed to get married, except by people like yourself that find the idea repulsive, or against their religious believes, or are closet homosexuals that don't want to face up to that fact...or whatever. So for you to simply state that they do not have the right, doesn't really get you off the hook. Why don't they have that right? Well, because bigoted assholes drafted legislationa and re-defined some terms so that gay were denied that right. Or do you have some other reason as to why gays should be denied the right to marry one another?

---

All that is off topic here and I've already been in, like, three threads explaining all of this. Its very simple, flies. Them lacking the right to marriage doesn't mean that I cannot be okay with them getting married. I can be okay with people doing things that they do not have a right to do. Its not the simple disagreeing that makes you a bigot, its the disrespect.From Message 106I even wrote it in all caps for you If we follow your logic, then racism, in and of itself, is not a form of bigotry. Honestly, yes. The more respectful you are the less of a bigot I'll think of you. Well, you were wrong about the definition being meaningless, but yeah, like I said before, bigotry is not black and white. We are all somewhat bigoted towards somethings, and some of us are more bigoted than others. You more than me, for example.

I know of an objective way to settle this argument: take a vote. Let's has a national referendum on gay marriage, and then we'll see who's subjectivity is more objective than the other's. Would you have an objective objection to my proposed solution? And would you abide with the outcome? I would. And I would say that anyone who wouldn't is traipsing on the threshold of bigotry.”HM

I wholly agree.I think you are missing the point I am trying to make. It is not my aim to be some sort of grand architect of the rational ideal as you seem to be assuming.
In practical terms I would go along with your damning assessment almost completely. In reality such a system is impossible because the world is full of uncompromising irrational fanatics. It is impossible because the world is full of bigots (to bring us full circle to the OP)No it is not my aim to suggest that the world is ever going to work in this way.
It is however my aim to demonstrate that some points of view are just inherently more ideological, irrational, uncompromising, restrictive and just more downright fucking unreasonable than others. It is these that I would call bigoted.Regardless of what you want to call it my argument is that not all points of view are equally pragmatic or equally reasonable and that the particular instance of gay marriage is a fine example of this.Your whole argument is kind of proving my point for me.......

If an ideological point of view is such that it seeks to restrict the rights of others regardless of whether those rights adversely affect anyone else or not.

If an ideology insists on restricting the rights of others for no practical or rational reason and is essentially and inherently irrationally intolerant of a particular grouping.

If an ideological point of view is so incapable of compromise that it would rather risk being wiped out itself than create a system that tolerates those with an opposing point of view.

If an ideology is such that it is in practical terms incapable of coexisting with others practising the application of their own personal ideology at the expense of no-one else.

If the basis of this ideology cannot be rationally expressed such that it can be included in an objective and rational process of arbitration and law making where the rights and freedoms of of all are weighed up. Even in principle.

If the ideology in question is incapable of being part of a system whereby each individual is free to pursue their own ideological belief systems within the framework of objective law.

​

THEN this is an inferior point of view by any standard of reasonableness.

​

The opposition to gay marriage as it has been articulated by everyone I have seen in this thread, including you, meets these criteria. It is irrational, ideological, prejudiced, restrictive of the rights of others for no practical reason, confrontational and completely opposes any legal framework that would apply the same rights to all.
The opposition to gay marriage as it has been articulated in this thread is inherently less reasonable than the pro gay marriage argument.
The pro gay marriage argument seeks to equalise rights between groups in society, at no personal cost of freedom to anyone else, within an objective rational framework of law that can be applied indiscriminately regardless of grouping and in such a way as to require no change of personal philosophy from it's opponents.

​

The anti gay marriage and pro gay marriage arguments are not just two equal points of view that happen to be opposed. The anti gay marriage argument is demonstrably just more bloody unreasonable by any objective standard.

​

If you need a word to describe that inferior and unreasonable position then the word bigot is, in this case, as good as any.

​

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

​

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Consider the following imaginary scenario:If 70% of a population want to enslave the other 30% on the basis of colour should they be alowed to do so?
Are the 70% population racist bigots because they want and intend to carry out this race based action?
If a vote was taken and the democratic inevitability of this situation occurred it would be indisputably democratic by the definition you are applying (i.e. majority rule)But would it be an act of bigotry?
If there are enough bigots can bigotry be applied democratically?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

OK, let's have another national referendum on that one, too. I'm willing to abide with the majority decision, and I believe the overwhelming majority would vote against enslaving people on the basis of skin color. The question here is whether or not the majority wants gay marriage, which I believe would tally a similar election result to that for slavery.I'd say, from a black person's POV, you are traipsing on the threshold of bigotry by suggesting a correlation between slavery and gay rights.”HMEdited by Hoot Mon, : No reason given.

---

If you got some quince, Pussycat, I got a runcible spoon.

I actually did not mention which skin colour or who wanted to enslave who. However I obviously hit upon a nerve unintentionally and that was not my aim so I will rephrase my question.The thing I am trying to get at is the question as to whether or not the rule of the majority actually eliminates bigotry. As you seem to be suggesting.Imagine a society deeply and hatefully divided on the basis of handedness.
If the majority wish to enslave all those who are left handed should they be allowed to do so?
If a vote is taken and the result is yes (as it inevitably would be if divided along a right handed vs left handed split) are the right handers leftisthand bigots or just exercising their democratic rights?Or can they be both bigots and exercising the principle of majority rule?
If there are enough bigots can bigotry be applied democratically?
What do you think?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

If, for some reason that is valid to the majority, left-handed people need to be put to slavery, then I must go along with that vote in a democracy. But your case in point is absurd. Here's a better one: In the condominium where I live we had a vote on what kind of barbecues should be allowed on our decks”gas or charcoal. We decided, in our little democracy, that gas grills were OK and charcoal grills were outlawed. Now, I happen to be a charcoal griller. But I didn't run out into the parking lot screaming: GAS GRILLERS ARE BIGOTS! GAS GRILLER ARE BIGOTS! I just went along with it like a good democratic citizen.But, by your reasoning, I should have been making a fuss on the threshold of bigotry over such things as chirality and barbecues.”HM

---

If you got some quince, Pussycat, I got a runcible spoon.

Was there a rational reason why the gas grillers objected to the charcoalers?
Presumably it was not just because they irrationally asserted that charcoal was 'wrong' and that all those who use charcoal should be banned from doing so?
Do you see the difference? Well at least you are consistent. If somewhat frightening.
In Germany they voted for Hitler. So his extermination of the Jews was just democracy in action?Please note I am not comparing Jews to homosexuals or anybody else. It is just my aim to see how far you are willing to take this 'majority rules' basis of you philosophy with regard to various examples. Many of these examples might not be directly related to gay rights as such but as you reminded me earlier this thread is about the principles of bigotry and not gay marriage alone.

I'm just not denying you what you yourself give to me, in the spirit of anti-bigotry, that is. Yes, there is a very small difference. Unfortunately is has nothing to do with the definition of the word. I can't believe any of you are even continuing on with this embarrassment any longer. Read the definition of the word.I've watched this thread unfold and have watched you slowly been backed in to a corner, with a narrower and narrower definition.The jig is up, bro. The Dictionary trumps your very bizarre version of bigotry.

quote:

---

yes...I'd call you a bigot. But just saying you hate Asians would not, in and of itself, make you a bigot.

---

Then what does, since you actually think I'm a bigot? You will say that I want to deny homosexuals the right to marry. Actually, no. I mostly don't care. However, if I make arguments that exposes weaknesses or inconsistencies in my detractors argument, much like I've been doing in this thread, then I will gladly make the argument.One argument was attacking the rather nonsensical moral standing of allowing one thing, but denying everything else, which consequently, that is what they charged against people who sought to deny homosexual marriage. The other was simply saying that, in respect of the institution of marriage, and respect to the desires of homosexuals to pledge to each other, and to have the same legal indemnities as married people, couldn't there be civil unions that allow ALL parties involved what they wanted?Somehow even compromise is even bigotry, which just goes to show that the people that hold the key to what is called "bigotry" is a group who first claims access to it. Well, that's ridiculous. That would be like wanting deny prisoners the ability to marry. Would someone who voted to not allow prisoners to marry be called "bigots," or is there a legitimate reason, that has NOTHING to do with despising anyone, the actual reason why?

---

“I know where I am and who I am. I'm on the brink of disillusionment, on the eve of bitter sweet. I'm perpetually one step away from either collapse or rebirth. I am exactly where I need to be. Either way I go towards rebirth, for a total collapse often brings a rebirth." -Andrew Jaramillo