When is it okay to call someone a bigot or accuse them of hating?

[kentonio]

Where do I support enacting laws to ban sodomy?

In fact, I support gay marriage.

Good for you.

Bigotry has a specific meaning. When people abuse it to vilify their opponents it becomes "this is what is true about people I disagree with" instead of "this is this one type of behavior which is understood (now) to be damaging". If you go about just vilifying your opponents, than there is nothing stopping you from being the vilified one at some point in the future.

Answer me this, were the people who opposed civil rights legislation bigots or just people who had a different idea about things?

It is important to go about things in a reasonable way. Not just 'my way is right, because I think my way is right'.

No, I'm afraid sometimes being reasonable is not acceptable when it results in some people being denied basic rights. There are very few simple issues in life that you can come down firmly on one side of, but things like this come under that category.

[giblets]

Obviously it's bigoted to only consider pacifism legitimate if it is espoused by a religious person.

[Aeson]

No you haven't addressed their reasoning. Not since the "children would be discriminated against", so not once in this thread. And you completely ignored that it was their reasoning and said they were bigoted!

I directly quoted their reasoning as you offered it. I said it was bigoted reasoning. That is not ignoring it you moron.

You did not address it, you did not address it specifically.

You are a liar Jon.

"I think that african-americans should only marry each other because only they understand each other and have crucial shared experiences"

"I think that japanese should marry japanese because that is the only way they can raise children harmoniously as japanese"

"I think that *insert religion here* should only marry together, so that they can raise children together as *insert religion here*"

Those are all bigoted ideas where people choose stereotypes at the expense of the actual people involved. People who support enforcing such things are certainly bigots.

See. I addressed the ideas specifically. I think they are bigoted. I explained why ("choose stereotypes at the expense of the actual people involved")

That is not ignoring it. That is not claiming that it isn't their reasons. You are a liar to not acknowledge these simple facts that are apparent within this thread.

[Aeson]

Everyone here is a bigot because each is arguing that their viewpoint, in one way or another, is either morally, spiritually, ethically or logically superior to the other.

I, of course, am the ultimate bigot because my beliefs are superior in every conceivable way to the sum of all viewpoints presented here.

Case Closed.

[Aeson]

It is important to go about things in a reasonable way. Not just 'my way is right, because I think my way is right'.

I have given actual reasoning. In no cases has my reasoning been "it is right, because I think my way is right". Yet you keep trying to paint my arguments as such. It's not reasonable of you, so get off your high horse.

[Jon Miller]

I don't know if that particular statement directly implies bigotry. I think you have to expand?

Are you saying:
"It is bigoted to think that those who are not religious are unable to strongly hold a pacifist sentiment."?

If so, I agree.

I don't know anyone, including the law that Aeson seems to have a problem with, that seems to agree with either your statement or my statement.

As far as it being easier for religious groups, I would expect it would also be easier for pacifists secular groups. I just don't happen to know of one?

Maybe if you are a dedicated member of Amnesty International? But they don't espouse complete pacifism?

JM

[notyoueither]

Where do I support enacting laws to ban sodomy?

In fact, I support gay marriage.

Bigotry has a specific meaning. When people abuse it to vilify their opponents it becomes "this is what is true about people I disagree with" instead of "this is this one type of behavior which is understood (now) to be damaging". If you go about just vilifying your opponents, than there is nothing stopping you from being the vilified one at some point in the future.

It is important to go about things in a reasonable way. Not just 'my way is right, because I think my way is right'.

JM
(replying to NYE)

So, your purpose in this thread is to split hairs over the meaning of the terms bigot and bigotry, and to promote your new and expanded definition. That's not very useful, IMO.

Anyway, society has to go one way or the other on the issue of same-sex marriage and families. One way is to enforce the views of some on a minority group. The other way is to afford a minority the same opportunities to find happiness and security as the majority enjoy.

It is pretty clear to me on which side the 'my way is right, because I think my way is right' thinking is.

[Aeson]

As far as it being easier for religious groups, I would expect it would also be easier for pacifists secular groups. I just don't happen to know of one?

It definitely started out as a religious only thing. It of course is still specifically not applied to those who object to the specifics of the war.

"Until the late 20th century, only members of certain religious groups known for their pacifist beliefs, including Quakers and Mennonites, could qualify for conscientious objector status. In 1971, a U.S. Supreme Court decision broadened the criteria to include anyone who "has deeply held beliefs that cause them to oppose participation in war in any form." This definition was carefully crafted to prevent claims of conscientious objector status to avoid service in a particular war, at that time the Vietnam War."

[Aeson]

You have showed a consistent ignorance and disinterest in being informed in all my discussions with you since you returned to the US (I think this is the case?).

I surely am in a worse mood. I'm on the other side of the world from the person I am in love with, and it's winter here. Drake and KH can finally ignore me (whether that's by forum or by willpower) so I have fewer options as to who to joust with.

Your claims of "ignorance and disinterest in being informed" are of course false. I disagree with you on some points, and have become more willing to engage you on those points than I was in the past. Mostly because of my mood. Perhaps a little bit because you felt the need to jump in and insinuate that you think there was something wrong with relationships like mine where people are engaged for years. (I will admit that's a bit irrational on my part, since you didn't actually say there was something wrong with my relationship specifically, but you were lending support and ammo to Drake's side of the argument where he was clearly being an *******, so **** you.) I know in the past I rarely discussed things with you even if I disagreed, and if so it was mostly amicable.

In this specific thread you started right in with calling me a bigot, and an admitted misrepresentation of my statements (as you say, attack). As we agreed in the last thread, that ended any likelihood of civility.

[Tupac Shakur]

Drake and KH can finally ignore me (whether that's by forum or by willpower) so I have fewer options as to who to joust with.

Thanks for the heads up. Aeson

[Kidlicious]

Where do I support enacting laws to ban sodomy?

In fact, I support gay marriage.

Bigotry has a specific meaning. When people abuse it to vilify their opponents it becomes "this is what is true about people I disagree with" instead of "this is this one type of behavior which is understood (now) to be damaging". If you go about just vilifying your opponents, than there is nothing stopping you from being the vilified one at some point in the future.

It is important to go about things in a reasonable way. Not just 'my way is right, because I think my way is right'.

JM
(replying to NYE)

Your efforts to present yourself as the Rabbi of Reasonable are a complete failure.

[Imran Siddiqui]

EDIT: Oh, swyve it, why bother?

If it is in reference to your continued discussion with Dashi, I completely agree. Though I most definitely appreciate your coming to my aid. I too have little idea what he was getting at .

[DaShi]

Of course you didn't. I shouldn't have expected you to.

[Uncle Sparky]

I think all Christians should show their love of Jesus with the quaint American tradition of 'showing the light' to the heathen.

[Egbert]

Drake and KH can finally ignore me (whether that's by forum or by willpower) so I have fewer options as to who to joust with.

Thanks for the heads up. Aeson

Are you finally admitting that you are Drake? Or are you telling us that you are KH?