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

[Aeson]

No you didn't. You just further demonstrated that you have problems being able to see how others think.

No, I understand perfectly that those reasons are what they think (in the hypothetical cases we are discussing). I just don't agree with you that they are not bigoted reasons or that the stupidity of their reasoning excuses their bigotry. (Which you then call me a bigot for. Displaying your hypocrisy...)

No wonder you were formally a bigot about race!

I was never a bigot about race. Of course you took the time to "understand" who I am before making claims about me, right? You're such a hypocrite!

If you read any reputable discussion about nazis or souther slave holders which is about their motivations or psychology, you will find the diagnosis that their reasoning was based on a 'fear of the other'.

That isn't a prerequisite for bigotry. Your point is moot, and your assumptions about how well I'm informed are probably going to come back to bite you in the ass like last time when we were discussing CO's. Why didn't you respond to my example of how supporting a war against Nazis would have invalidated someone from being a CO in Vietnam anyways?

[Jon Miller]

I was never a bigot about race. Of course you took the time to "understand" who I am before making claims about me, right? You're such a hypocrite!

I was pretty sure that you said you had such thoughts before you realized they were excuses, but perhaps I am remembering wrong.

JM

[Jon Miller]

I understand their viewpoint very well. I held the same viewpoint up until I was 17 or 18. I had all sorts of justifications for this view. Doesn't matter, I was a bigot. That is simply the apt term to describe the viewpoint where people try to keep other consenting adults from marrying based on race/sexuality.

I don't really see how I misunderstood this.

Maybe you meant sexuality here instead?

JM

[Aeson]

I think that:
intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself due to not understanding people being able to have different opinions from oneself:
is better. Which basically comes down to (based on psychology/etc) fear/hatred towards the 'other'.

JM

Your definition sucks. Very, very few people would qualify. Certainly not me, as I understand people have different opinions from myself and am not afraid of nor do I hate people who oppose [interacial/gay] marriage. (I have no fear or hatred of anyone for that matter.)

[Aeson]

I don't really see how I misunderstood this.

Maybe you meant sexuality here instead?

I was born late enough that inter-racial marriage was never even an issue in my strict Mormon upbringing. (Which goes to show how far gone those people who still oppose inter-racial marriage are...) Racism was never an issue for me. I was raised in an environment where being bigoted towards homosexuals was rather natural though.

The point being that you just jump to conclusions rather than try to "understand".

[Jon Miller]

You don't understand people who have opinions different from yourself.

You have repeatedly maintained that their opinions are not only wrong, but are invalid and are just masking what they really think (are just justifications).

People who try to ban gay marriage (both the bigots and the non-bigots) also say they are not afraid of and do not hate the people they oppose.

And it may be ideas and not people.

Maybe lack of understanding or lack of empathy would be better words. Hatred and fear are so strong.

Still, this is the basis of unreasoned intolerance.

JM

[Jon Miller]

The point being that you just jump to conclusions rather than try to "understand".

It wasn't directly related to your reasoning.

And I am trying to understand. I am still discussing with you? And you are with me. So we are both trying to understand.

JM

[Aeson]

To delve further into my beliefs back then, I never hated gays, nor was I afraid of them. I felt they were sinners who made bad choices, and actually felt sorry for them and hoped they would turn back to God like I would any other "sinner".

It took me a long time to realize that was bigotry on my part.

[Aeson]

You don't understand people who have opinions different from yourself.

I understand their opinions quite well, thank you. I have plainly addressed the reasoning you are attributing to them. Then you run away and pretend I am not addressing it.

You have repeatedly maintained that their opinions are not only wrong, but are invalid and are just masking what they really think (are just justifications).

No. I have addressed the specific reasoning you have presented in this thread, and in other threads. I did not say it was just masking bigotry. I have said it was bigotry itself or justification for bigotry (eg. their justification for opposing gay marriage). I have not said it is "just justifications" in the sense you are trying to depict my statements.

(Again, you are showing very clearly what a hypocrite you are here. Rather than try to understand my statements, you are continuing to invent arguments to attribute to me.)

People who try to ban gay marriage (both the bigots and the non-bigots) also say they are not afraid of and do not hate the people they oppose.

So? You keep ignoring that hatred and/or fear are not necessary for the definition of bigotry (except the one you invented when you started arguing with a dictionary )

Maybe lack of understanding or lack of empathy would be better words. Hatred and fear are so strong.

Yes, lack of understanding is definitely a much better word. A less nice way of saying that would be "stupid" or "ignorant".

[Jon Miller]

I am confused about how your beliefs, as you present them now, were bigotry.

If it was because you never put yourself in their shoes/perspective/etc, which is true for many/most Christians, than I would agree. It was bigotry.

But I don't see how, as you present yourself right there, you were a bigot based on my or Oxford's definition of bigotry.

The only definition of bigotry where you were displayed bigotry is your own definition, which causes you to display bigotry (in my or Oxford's sense) to a large number of the people around you.

JM

[Jon Miller]

I understand their opinions quite well, thank you. I have plainly addressed the reasoning you are attributing to them. Then you run away and pretend I am not addressing it.

No you do not. You keep saying, that this is just a justification for bigotry. You are either saying that their reasons and motivations do not matter, or are just cover for their real motivations to justify discrimination. You haven't displayed a real understanding of their motivations.

Of course, if you are using a completely different definition of bigotry than I or Oxford, than perhaps you should reconsider how you relate to people. You are calling people bigots when by their definition and my definition and the general populations definition they are not. And it is causing you to display the same intolerance towards the opinions of others which has been so damaging in religion/culture(Race)/etc in the past 1000 years.

JM

[Jon Miller]

Bigotry is damaging.

Including the type you have displayed in this thread.

Which is the case whether you go by oxford's definition or mine.

JM

[Jon Miller]

Yes, lack of understanding is definitely a much better word. A less nice way of saying that would be "stupid" or "ignorant".

Many of the most intelligent and knowledgeable people have a great lack of understanding of others. You see this all the time in academia towards the less educated or 'blue-collar' sector.

I don't think 'stupid' or 'ignorant' are good ways of saying it.

JM

[Aeson]

It wasn't directly related to your reasoning.

It was directly related to whether I was as you claimed, bigoted on race. That's what matters.

And I am trying to understand. I am still discussing with you? And you are with me. So we are both trying to understand.

Yet you started in with calling me a bigot in your third response... what did we agree in the other thread about that? Have you forgotten?

As for me, I'm not really trying to understand you. Your points were obvious enough in the last thread. I simply disagree with them. (Which leads you to call me a bigot, hypocritically.)

[Jon Miller]

I don't call you a bigot because you disagree with me.

I call you a bigot because you are intolerant of the opinions of others.

I guess if you are not trying to understand me, that explains this thread a bit. I should have maybe guessed that would be the case, but I held out hope. At least I get to understand you better.

JM