On the Threshold of Bigotry

Bullshit, NJ. Don't you sit there and call me a liar...that somehow you know that I really don't believe what I just wrote. You find one place in anything I've said that would imply differently. Show me one place where I've said something that would give to impression that I feel the first guy is a bigot. Show me, N.J. Provide a link to a posting where I've written something that would now make me out to be a liar. Show me these ad hoc qualifiers that have backed me into this corner where I must now lie to save face.The first guy is NOT a bigot, and I have never implied differently...I have been completely consistent with my attempt to explain to you what the word bigot means. It's what I have been arguing since this whole thing started probably over a 1000 posts ago. The fact that you don't now believe me only strengthens my viewpoint that you are indeed a homophobic bigot that has no clue what the word means. Did you read the part where I stated that I would first explain to him WHY separate but equal doesn't work in this Country? He certainly shows the potential for intolerance though, wouldn't you agree. Where as the first guy...well...he may hate gays but at least he is not doing anything intolerant towards them. Golly, which one of the two seems the most likely to become a bigot to you N.J.? What's with this "utter intolerance" now? I love you guys. Every time you come to the realization that you're a bigot, you get out of it by adding new words and meanings to the definition.I yet you claim that I am the one making up the definition. What a crock. As I said in my previous post (did you bother to read it at all?), I would not consider him a bigot until such time that after having it explained to him WHY homosexuals should not be denied the right to marry the person of their choice, he still wanted to deny them this right. He's not a bigot until he tries to deny to others that which he himself is afforded. And here we see more of this crapolla again. Show me where I made up a definition, NJ. I am using the same definition that you are. The difference is, is that I know the meanings of the words. If your beliefs deny to others that which you yourself are afforded, then you are a bigot. I'm not the one that thinks everyone is a bigot towards everyone else. I'm the one that is applying the definition of bigotry as it is defined.Here's something to try. If you believe (as I think you do) that homosexuals should not be allowed to marry the person of their choice, then explain to me how this does not fit the definition of bigotry. Are you not being intolerant towards homosexuals? If not, please explain how this is not showing an intolerance.

They are related In that both are currently the law. If one is going to apply the standard "the law say" then that ends both conversations. Libertarians are pikers. Don't play dumb, we have been discussing government intervention into the peaceful pursuits of our fellow man. The generic "you" is spelled differently. One leaves off the "y" and the "u" and adds an "ne".When I was seven or eight I read London's Martin Eden. The pre-literate Martin, while talking to Ruth (Morse), comments (paraphrase), "You know how it is when you drink too much." Whereupon, Ruth corrects his second use of "you" because it implies direct experience. I've been a prick about it ever since. I couldn't say that "justified" is the right word. I think it foolish socially and economically, but I think so long as I am not the owner of that restaurant then it's not my call. I'll not be eating there either, which is my right ” and, frankly, duty. I would hope that our common ground was that neither of us wants a government that enforces the social will upon the individual without considering whether there is a less coercive way of doing so then violating property rights, rights to association, rights to self- determination, right to free expression, rights to . Other then that ” we're cool.

---

KindlyEveryone deserves a neatly dug grave. It is the timing that's in dispute.‘—

That would explain why you continuously miss the meat and potatoes of an argument and go right for the cordial.

---

KindlyEveryone deserves a neatly dug grave. It is the timing that's in dispute.‘—

No. This is prioritizing the definition of terms above the equal rights. The way to fix it is to fight for equal rights first, then go ahead and squabble over what you'd like to call it. That removes all the bigotry, and fixes the issue. No rub. Which is to say... you'd rather squabble over the definition of terms first, and let that sort out who gets what rights instead of fighting for equal rights first and then sorting out the definition of terms.Yes, this certainly is an easy way to make it look like you care. However, the right thing to do is to prioritize equal rights over the definition of terms. You should fight for equal rights before squabbling over the definition of terms.With full knowledge that prioritizing the definition of terms over equal rights makes one a bigot, you have gone ahead and stated that you'd rather prioritize the definition of terms over equal rights.Whenever you'd like to change your mind and feed the starving man before you decide what to call your tomato, let me know.

I'm not coming anywhere near you, Rrhain. I don't know which would be worse: you actually performing a circumcision on me, or you just fumbling around with my unit before hand. Thank you for confirming that you believe neither sex should be circumcised. That's consistent with your POV. Now, what to do about male circumcision? I'm definitely glad they circumcised me, even if they didn't ask me first. I'm sorry they didn't get to you. Don't your lovers complain about the additional health hazard of an unsanitary foreskin? Any Jewish lovers in your date book?”HM

---

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

Because race and sexual orientation are as different as Mars and a tomato. You forgot to include these inequalities, too: children and sexual orientation, multiple spouses and sexual orientation, and other species and sexual orientation. True, I have not explained it well enough to convince you. But do I also need to explain why men shouldn't use the lady's room? Do I need to explain why a man shouldn't be allowed to marry his daughter or his dog? Do I need to explain why public nudity is immoral? (Nudists feel the heat of such bigotry all the time.) True again. I demand urinals in all mens' public restrooms, and I don't need no stinkin' women squatting over them, either. Boy, am I bigot for my bigoted POV! Oh, Rrhain, you just can't seem to get on board this logical bus. The truth is that I desire for gays exactly what I desire for myself: a heterosexual marriage and a semi-annual visit to the tooth dentist.”HM

---

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

Off topic, but that is a giant myth.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

OK, let's feed the starving man a tomato. But let's not tell him first what it is; let's just say it's good for him and that he doesn't need to know what it is. "Just shut up, starving man, and eat what I'm feeding you!" But don't starving men have equal rights, too? Isn't there something called the "Freedom of Information Act"? Would you deprive a starving man of all of his legal rights just because he's starving?”HM

---

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

Jazzns, you're right about being OT, but wrong about being a myth. From Cervical Cancer in Female Partners of Uncircumcised Men:

quote:

---

A number of studies have documented higher rates of cervical cancer in women who have had one or more male sexual partners who were uncircumcised. Whereas the earlier studies were somewhat equivocal the evidence from a recent large international study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, to be discussed later, now provides overwhelming evidence of the link between lack of male circumcision and cervical cancer in the female sexual partner.

---

”HM

---

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

You're going to have to attempt explaining this again. I can't make any sense out of it.What legal right, especially anything in the Freedom of Information Act, would anyone be breaching if they gave food to a starving man?Do you understand the analogy?Here it is again: It has nothing to do with 'witholding information' or anything like that. Feel free to squabble over definitions and terms all you'd like... after the rights/freedoms have been made equal. Anything less is nothing more then a delay tactic.

You totally missed my point.The pharmacist doesn't have to go so far as to step in between the patient and the doctor by refusing to fill a particular prescription if they decide to simply not have that particular drug on their shelves. I guess that is all fine and dandy, but my point is tangential. And you have to carry it to dispense it.Besides, look at the OP...From Message 1: I agree with you that if the drug is sitting there and the pharmacist just doesn't want to fill it, then that is wrong. But phamracies can decide which drugs they carry and which ones they don't. Its not bigotry to not carry a drug.From Message 133:

quote:

---

In the case of your pharmacist, I would presume that he would demand that he be allowed access to the medications his doctor has prescribed for him without having a third party who has no standing stick his nose into the decision that he and his doctor made concerning his medical treatment.

---

If the pharmacist decides to not carry a drug at all then they are not acting as a third party by sticking his nose into the decision that another and their doctor made.From Message 146:

quote:

---

But not as a medical practitioner. The course of treatment was decided by the doctor in concert with the patient. For the pharmacist to step in is to have him practice medicine without a license. When he became a licensed pharmacist, he took an oath to behave in a certain way. If he cannot live up to that requirement, then he needs to find another line of work.

---

You're wrong here too. The phamacy is not "practicing medice" by deciding which drugs they carry.

---

Actually, the OP explicitly talks of carrying it rather than dispensing it. Well, I did read the OP. Right. The pharmacy shouldn't be forced to carry/dispense the drug. New drugs come out all the time. People have been pharmacists for a long time. If a new drug comes out that mkes them uncomfortable, then they don't have to buy it and they don't have to sell it. That doesn't mean that the position of phamacist is not for them. What if you were a pharmacist for 20 years and then they came out with a pill that "cures" homosexuality, and you disagreed with the medication?

But maybe he's allergic to tomatoes. He could sue you over that.”HM

---

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

Are you a hot lesbian, 2no? NTTIAWWT. And is it bigoted for me to ask?”HM

---

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

I would have to know your motives to judge whether it was or was not bigoted. I do not, however, need to know your motives to know it is rude, stupid and, if I were, insulting. You need a time out, dude. BTW: Where I come from, calling someone a dude can get you shot, dude. The implication of this is that you have been insulted ” possibly in return. Suck it up, dude.

---

KindlyEveryone deserves a neatly dug grave. It is the timing that's in dispute.‘—

Hoot Mon responds to me:

quote:

---

I don't know which would be worse: you actually performing a circumcision on me, or you just fumbling around with my unit before hand.

---

And you wonder why the term is homophobia. You will note that I said nothing about sexual activity and yet you jumped there immediately, so scared of what you might do.I'm not going to have sex with you, Hoot Mon, so stop asking me.

quote:

---

Now, what to do about male circumcision?

---

You leave it up to the person the foreskin is attached to.

quote:

---

I'm sorry they didn't get to you.

---

You act as if you've seen my penis. Look, I'm not going to have sex with you. Please stop asking.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.