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

[Kidlicious]

I said that the root reasons were fear of others and to read studies/etc about the psychology about it.

Please, put some thought into your posts.

I guess this is just you demonstrating that you are not interested in understanding me.

JM

Listen. He's saying that he was bigoted towards homosexuals because he was brought up in a group that was bigoted towards them. It's not that he hated them, but his identity was formed in a group that hated them. That's basically the same thing as what you're saying. If you can't see that, you don't understand the literature that you are reading.

edit: Actually I'm assuming that the group hated gays, which might be wrong.

[Aeson]

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.

For one, I was not tolerant of their right to marry. (Or would not have been if it were a visible issue back then.) That is enough to fit the definition IMO. I know the definition you picked deals soley with tolerating opinions, but even when using that definition, when you get around to banning people's right to marry you certainly aren't showing much tolerance for their opinions on who they want to marry.

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.

As I said earlier, there are varying levels of tolerance.

a) I tolerate people's right to hold their opinions (regardless of whether I think they're bigoted or not)
b) I tolerate people's right to label other people's opinions (which is essentially the same right as above)
c) I do not tolerate attempts to force those opinions onto others in cases like banning gay or interracial marriage.

So that is my tolerance line. If being intolerant of that third one is "bigotry", then by all means, we should all be bigots. Because it is a travesty that we discriminate (or did discriminate) based on those issues.

You are using "tolerate" differently. In an absurd way that actually makes you a bigot applying your use of "tolerate" to b), as doing so is in fact exercising b).

(As for your further extensions on the definition, I will let you argue that with the dictionary. Hate and fear are not prerequisites for bigotry until you can convince them otherwise.)

[Jon Miller]

For one, I was not tolerant of their right to marry. (Or would not have been if it were a visible issue back then.) That is enough to fit the definition IMO. I know the definition you picked deals soley with tolerating opinions, but even when using that definition, when you get around to banning people's right to marry you certainly aren't showing much tolerance for their opinions on who they want to marry.

Plenty of people say A should not marry B but should marry A without trying to ban things...

I would be against banning, obviously.

The actual banning or whatever else could be the result of bigotry or could be the result of something else. But it is a practical thing and not a thing of opinions.

The issue is one of opinions, which is the realm of bigotry.

You keep mixing up causes and effects?

JM

[Kidlicious]

Is he saying that he isn't against gay marriage because of his opinions? He seems to have me on ignore.

[Aeson]

I said that the root reasons were fear of others and to read studies/etc about the psychology about it.

You are the one who needs to learn to read.

You called me ignorant for saying that there were Nazis who felt Jews were subhuman.
You called me ignorant for saying that there were slaveholders who felt it was their God given right.

Then you confirmed that there were in both cases.

Yet you called me ignorant again.

Now you are claiming that my "ignorance" is in regards to the fear behind it you are talking about, yet I haven't made any statements at all in regards to that issue! Again, you are assuming my position rather than letting me state it or even inquiring as to what it is. You've gone so far to assume my education on the matter as well, pretending I haven't read anything about it. (How vast your sweeping generalization is in that regard I'm not sure, since you have been as ambiguous as possible in how you identify what I should "read".

So much for your "understanding". Just more hypocrisy on your part.

[Elok]

EDIT: Oh, swyve it, why bother?

[Jon Miller]

You are tiring me out Aeson.

I said that you were ignorant for saying that those were the root and reasoned causes and that they were the real causes and not fear of the 'other'.

But you aren't interested in fixing your ignorance, so what else am I to do?

Have a good week.

JM

[Aeson]

The actual banning or whatever else could be the result of bigotry or could be the result of something else. But it is a practical thing and not a thing of opinions.

The actual banning would definitely be a result of bigotry. It is extremely obstinate intolerance for A and B's opinions on whether they should marry or not. As such it fits the definition perfectly.

[Jon Miller]

The actual banning would definitely be a result of bigotry. It is extremely obstinate intolerance for A and B's opinions on whether they should marry or not. As such it fits the definition perfectly.

But banning can result from many other things other than bigotry.

You seem to be completely incapable of seeing things outside of your little world view.

JM

[Aeson]

I said that you were ignorant for saying that those were the root and reasoned causes and that they were the real causes and not fear of the 'other'.

You just misread what I said. I said "no" to your statement that I was lending support for your argument.

[Aeson]

But banning can result from many other things other than bigotry.

Banning it is in and of itself obstinate intolerance of A and B's opinions on who to marry, and as such qualifies as bigotry regardless of whatever lead to it.

[Kidlicious]

You are tiring me out Aeson.

I said that you were ignorant for saying that those were the root and reasoned causes and that they were the real causes and not fear of the 'other'.

But you aren't interested in fixing your ignorance, so what else am I to do?

Have a good week.

JM

And what I said to you is that someone can be brought up in a group where there are bigots who hate, and that person doesn't neccessarily hate thoses people. It's reasonable to say all members of that group are bigots.

What is not reasonable is calling people ignorant and intolerant just because they believe differently than you do. That's bigoted.

You think you are very educated and that you know more than everyone you talk to Jon. Education doesn't make you right. In some cases it just makes you arrogant.

[Aeson]

You seem to be completely incapable of seeing things outside of your little world view.

I have time and again addressed the "reasoning" that you have proffered. I have addressed it specifically. I have not ignored it or claimed it doesn't exist. Then you claim I am simply ignoring it or that I have said it isn't their reasoning at all. You have failed to support your lies, but continue to expound upon them.

I actually do understand their reasoning, and simply still think it's bigoted when they oppose gay/interracial marriage. We disagree on whether it is bigoted or not. That is all. Yet in your eyes that makes me a bigot, which in my eyes makes you a hypocrite.

[Aeson]

Why were the europeans so anti-jewish. It isn't because of some inherent anti-jewness in Christianity. American Christianity is very pro-jews.

You keep telling people to go read about issues, while you display ignorance in regards to those same issues.

Like when you were telling me to "please read" about CO status the other day, and claimed I could be a CO in Vietnam. Then you ran away when I pointed out that because I would (honestly) have fought against the Nazis in WWII I wouldn't have qualified for CO status in Vietnam even though I would certainly have been a conscientious objector to that whole stupid war. I guess you didn't read that part of the wiki page you quoted from, did you?

As for the ignorance you are displaying here, there has definitely been anti-semitism stemming from Christianity, and it occurs even to this day. American Christianity (in general, as you put it) has only relatively recently become all that amicable to Jews. Nevermind that "American Christianity" is an absurd grouping to discuss in this regard given the vast differences in how different segments of that grouping view the subject.

In any case, pretending that everyone behaves according to some monolithic psychology is absurd. People have varying motivations, opinions, beliefs, fears, ect. It makes me think perhaps you should "please read" about it so you won't be so ignorant of these sort of blindingly obvious facts in the future.

[Jon Miller]

I didn't run away.

You had a problem with CO being only religious.

I proved to you it wasn't only for religious reasons.

Yes, you can't be 'CO' to one war while not being 'CO' in general. This seems perfectly logical to me. You aren't really a CO in that case. You are someone who disagrees with a specific war, which is not the definition of CO.

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?).

You were entirely wrong in that thread, and you are entirely wrong in this one.

JM