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

[Aeson]

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.

No, my reasoning is based on the proper use of terminology.

(Affirmative action is discrimination.)

[Aeson]

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

I am just using the dictionary definition. It does not require hate. (It may include hate.)

What bigotry does require is a refusal to be tolerant of others, especially in regards to race, religion, politics. There are of course many levels of tolerance, and I have touched on some of them in this thread already. Jon is extending "tolerance" to the point where the definition is meaningless, meaning you can't apply labels (even applicable ones) to people or their beliefs. We are all bigots in Jon's world, even himself. He just can't see it since he changes the definition in regards to himself and those he agrees with.

[Kidlicious]

I am just using the dictionary definition. It does not require hate. (It may include hate.)

What bigotry does require is a refusal to be tolerant of others, especially in regards to race, religion, politics. There are of course many levels of tolerance, and I have touched on some of them in this thread already. Jon is extending "tolerance" to the point where the definition is meaningless, meaning you can't apply labels (even applicable ones) to people or their beliefs. We are all bigots in Jon's world, even himself. He just can't see it since he changes the definition in regards to himself and those he agrees with.

In reality I agree that we are all bigots. That doesn't mean that the way we vote is based on our bigotry. Intolerance is also a loaded word.

Honestly, you my have a valid case against what Jon is doing. I'm not following what he's saying that well. Or atleast I'm not able to tell if what you are saying is true or not.

[Kidlicious]

I don't think Aeson is an intolerant person, certainly not one of the most intolerant people on this site. I think he's very reasonable.

I'm not really sure what JM is trying to say exactly.

[Aeson]

Jon's definition of tolerant is just different than what you're using Kid. Using his definition he's actually correct. It's just a meaningless definition of "tolerance" he is using.

[Kidlicious]

Yeah, I don't think it makes much sense to say that people are intolerant of christians in a society where most people are christians. Intolerance only makes sense when you are talking about minorities. The exception would be when minorities are terrorists.

That said, I don't consider being against gay marriage intolerance. I just don't.

[DaShi]

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?"

Because you're explaining the same over and over again despite that I haven't offered any argument against it. Lecturing for lecturing's sake. If you read my posts without personal bias, you'll see that I'm not saying anything different other than that I'm admitting that it actually is moral superiority.

[Elok]

You're not saying anything clearly at all. Certainly not consistently. How does an inadequate intellectual understanding constitute, in and of itself, a moral failing? If you're not offering an argument against basic logic but maintaining an unsupported conclusion regardless, that's on you, not me.

[Elok]

Now, to be fair, I did start off too hostile, mostly because I seemed to recall you being one of the charter members of the Apolyton Needlessly Dickish Atheists Club and you were going after a friend of mine with what seemed (and still seem) to be unfounded accusations of arrogance or some such. I may well have been mistaken on either or both counts, and in any case that was just embarrassingly pissy, so sorry.

[giblets]

This seems like a very fruitless discussion. Like, well, a lot of discussions of religion between people who take religion seriously and people who think religion is stupid. I'm not even sure what is being discussed.

[Elok]

Neither am I. That's what so irritating about it. WHAT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT?

[DaShi]

You're not saying anything clearly at all. Certainly not consistently. How does an inadequate intellectual understanding constitute, in and of itself, a moral failing? If you're not offering an argument against basic logic but maintaining an unsupported conclusion regardless, that's on you, not me.

So I only have two choices?

[DaShi]

Now, to be fair, I did start off too hostile, mostly because I seemed to recall you being one of the charter members of the Apolyton Needlessly Dickish Atheists Club and you were going after a friend of mine with what seemed (and still seem) to be unfounded accusations of arrogance or some such. I may well have been mistaken on either or both counts, and in any case that was just embarrassingly pissy, so sorry.

This seems more like your problem than mine.

[DaShi]

This seems like a very fruitless discussion. Like, well, a lot of discussions of religion between people who take religion seriously and people who think religion is stupid. I'm not even sure what is being discussed.

No, I do agree that members of one religion must believe that their religion has a better understanding of god than other religions. However, that creates an inherent belief in moral superiority over other religions because God is their moral center. This leads to several reactions from religious people ranging from pity to violent hatred.

[Jon Miller]

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).

Bigotry is not just discrimination against people based on race. I already addressed that bigotry is based on motivation and not just prejudice/discrimination.

To be clear, discrimination on race does not imply bigot.

Just because someone's motivation is not reasoned correct or is stupid does not mean that isn't their real and correct motivation. I think that if you look deep enough, most peoples motivations are 'incorrectly' reasoned in some sphere.

Those are still their reasons.

It also may be (and is in the case we are talking about now), that some say 'this is my reason' to hide some bigotry while others have it as their honest and considered reason. It doesn't change that you can not paint all the same color.

I agree that most people are bigots (at some level), and probably am one (at some level), I disagree that I am being a bigot towards you.

JM