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

[Elok]

Okay, are you trolling, or what?

DanSed; by "being too full of yourself," do you mean "formalizing my argument to make the reasoning as clear as possible, so that we can figure out where the misunderstanding lies?"

[Kidlicious]

He's not full of himself because he isn't a bigot. That is, he isn't more right than you are.

[Aeson]

Bigotry is prejudice without understanding and/or empathy and/or viewing things from the other's perspective. Basically due to them being different from you.

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.

You are being a bigot because you are saying that those who think/say that some group should not marry some other group are racists/bigots/etc. You don't understand them, you claim that their motivations are racist/bigoted/etc due to your lack of understanding.

I understand them very well. They want to stop other people from being able to choose for themselves because of their race/sexuality. That is bigotry.

I am not being a bigot in pointing this out to you because I do understand your perspective.

You are being a "bigot" in the exact same way you claim I am being a "bigot". You are a hypocrite to not apply the same reasoning to your own actions. (No, I don't think this is actually bigotry in either case, your use of the term is incorrect.)

You obviously do not understand my perspective, as made abundantly clear by your made up "quote" and absurd number of inaccuracies, and your continued attempts to describe my motivations rather than actually ask what they are.

I am not claiming your motivations are contrary to what you claim they are.

Yes, you are. You have not once even asked me what my motivations are. Every time I posit actual reasoning you drop it and run away to your own conjured "answers".

Let's take another example. I am prejudiced against pedophiles. I don't think this makes me a bigot because I do try to see things from their perspective. I do even understand wanting to have sex with someone one shouldn't (a girl who wasn't interested in me, a girl who was 15 when I was in my 20s, etc). I can place myself enough into their shoes to see things from their perspective, and their pedophiliac actions are still abhorrent.

You just referred to pedophiles as "pedophiles". Which is analogous to my referring to bigots as "bigots".

If you had any empathy or desire to understand my viewpoint at all you would have asked me what my motivations were, what my background was, why I think this. You haven't done so, rather you invent motivations for me and using them to call me a bigot. You ignore my actual reasoning in favor of your own inventions. Your actions speak so much more clearly than your words. I disagree with you about whether or not these people are displaying bigotry by opposing the right to marry. So you call me a bigot. (The hilarious thing is I haven't called you a bigot for our disagreement, yet I am the intolerant one who "just calls people bigots because they are different from me". )

Then you go all high and mighty mode about how understanding you are. You're so full of bull**** and hypocrisy.

[Aeson]

Just to illustrate the level of "empathy" and "understanding" that you are displaying Jon, here is your lie about me from earlier in the thread:

"I am accepting, and you should be too, in exactly the same way as I am" and goes about not accepting 50+% of the worlds population

/Aeson

And all that is wrong about your conjured "quote" that you're too scared to address:

a) I haven't said anywhere that I am accepting in this specific regard. I have plainly stated that I am not accepting of specific things.
b) I have not told you what to accept or not
c) I certainly haven't said anyone should be like me
d) The percentage of the world population is very poorly qualified, it should be "not accepting of their views on disallowing consenting adults to marry".

[Jon Miller]

That was not me describing why you are a bigot, and is purely an attack at your expense. It is trying to demonstrate what sort of thing you are doing so that you can realize and do something different.

You have been clear about your motives for calling all those people bigots, it is because you can't imagine their reasoning being anything other than racist/heterosexist/etc. Because you can't see things from their perspective.

Just because you were a 'way' doesn't mean everyone else is.

Your reasoning is that you refuse to understand where they are coming from.

My definition is clear, provides a clear line between what is bigotry and what is not (and demonstrates where prejudice becomes bigotry).

JM

[Kidlicious]

In order for being against gay marriage to be bigotry the subject would have to actually hate gays (as an emotion, not an action). I don't think that everyone who is against gay marriage hates gays in that way. Some love gays, but don't think they should be married.

As I've said before, I don't believe that people have a right to do whatever they want. Political freedom is not some absolute. Our forefathers fought so that we would have relative freedom.

[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.

You have many other associations with the word bigotry and it does not purely mean "person who is against some group of consenting adults from marrying due to cultural/racial/sexuality/etc reasons.

I know this. You speak english.

So first look at the term 'bigot', look what it means, and then see who has those properties.

JM

[Berzerker]

I'm going Mormon - posthumously.

They can baptize me once I'm dead and I'll look into the making amends with god at that time.

hell ya, I want all the world's religions to be praying for my sorry ass when I'm dead

and what does bigot mean, btw?

seems like the thread needs a solid definition

[Aeson]

That was not me describing why you are a bigot, and is purely an attack at your expense.

Which is of course a good example of how "understanding" and "empathetic" you have been in this conversation. You started out with personal attacks based on lies. Your next post after the personal attack was to call me a bigot rather than discuss my reasoning. Then you start preaching about how tolerant, understanding, and empathetic you are.

You have been clear about your motives for calling all those people bigots, it is because you can't imagine their reasoning being anything other than racist/heterosexist/etc. Because you can't see things from their perspective.

I can see things from their perspective. I can also see how their perspective is bigoted.

Just because you were a 'way' doesn't mean everyone else is.

When I hold the exact same reasoning for something, it's the same reasoning. Believe me, I've been through all the reasons trying to justify my own bigotry to myself back then, as well as many times from the other side, and they just don't hold water. In the end when a person is trying to enforce discrimination against people based on sexuality or race, they are displaying bigotry in that regard. Doesn't matter what justifications they try to give for it. Those are only reasons as to why they are choosing such bigotry.

Your reasoning is that you refuse to understand where they are coming from.

Bull****.

In the thread where we discussed people who were opposed to race mixing, I addressed your arguments specifically in regards to the reasoning you offered. You said they oppose it because of harm to the children. I addressed that reasoning specifically, and noted why it was stupid (conflation of marriage and having children) and why it was bigotry (supporting discrimination against people based on race).

You are the one misrepresenting people's motivations and reasons. You take arguments like I offered above, and pretend it's simply "they think differently than me" rather than actually discuss the statements I have made. Then you call me a bigot based on your decision to misconstrue what I've said or ignore what I've said completely in favor of your own conjurations. You're a hypocrite.

My definition is clear, provides a clear line between what is bigotry and what is not (and demonstrates where prejudice becomes bigotry).

Yes it's very clear (though incorrect). The funny thing being you don't even understand your definition and how it applies to your own actions.

[Aeson]

You have many other associations with the word bigotry and it does not purely mean "person who is against some group of consenting adults from marrying due to cultural/racial/sexuality/etc reasons.

You are promoting a logical fallacy here. I was applying the term "bigotry" (b) to a specific instance (a). You have misconstrued this to pretend that I was saying bigotry (b) is only that (a):

"all a is b, thus all b is a"
"all [anti-mixing] is bigotry, thus all bigotry is [anti-mixing]"

When someone tries to discriminate against others based on their race or sexuality, that is bigotry. That does not mean that it is all bigotry is or can be.

So first look at the term 'bigot', look what it means, and then see who has those properties.

Using your definition for it, you are a bigot. (As am I, and essentially the whole world.)

Using the real definition of bigot, the bigotry in this specific case is the bigotry of those who are not tolerant of the rights of others based on their race or sexuality.

Once you stretch that definition to the point where you are applying it to those who are not tolerant of bigotry, then you've made the word meaningless and applicable to just about everyone but the staunchest anarchists.

[Kidlicious]

Being against gay marriage isn't neccessarily discrimination. The term discrimination implies prejudice.

[Aeson]

In order for being against gay marriage to be bigotry the subject would have to actually hate gays (as an emotion, not an action).

No, bigotry does not require hate. It may often be associated with it of course.

[Kidlicious]

You can be for or against affirmative action, but I don't think it's bigotry or discrimination. I think your reasoning is based on the claim that everyone have equal rights. Not everyone believes in equal rights. That doesn't make them bigots.

[Aeson]

Being against gay marriage isn't neccessarily discrimination.

Yes, it is discrimination. The only applicable question is whether it is discrimination that we find valid or invalid.

[Kidlicious]

No, bigotry does not require hate. It may often be associated with it of course.

If that's the way you are defining the word then fine. I'm a bigot.