|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: On the Threshold of Bigotry | |||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Straggler writes:
None, if you prefer anarchy. What right have I, or you, to impose our ideologies on others? What right have others to impose their ideologies on us? ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
lyx2no writes:
Pharmacist Phil has the power to deny a woman her legal access to prescribed birth-control medication. Phil should be in the business of filling prescriptions without prejudice toward those who oppose his POV. Phil, by my estimation, is doing exactly what gay-marriage advocates are doing: proselytizing an agenda with the accusation that anyone who opposes it is a bigot. Do you not recognize that there is a significant difference between forcing others to live by standards not their own and not facilitating their standards?Phil isn't requiring anyone to do anything other than doing it outside of his establishment, something he should have the right to do. ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Grizz writes:
At street level, at least, the highlighted part is always the case. This suggests to me that the game of bigotry is played out only on a provincial landscape amongst pedestrian players who are the intellectual equivalents of homeless people. Regarding the term Bigot, this is a rather strong characterization to place upon individuals who are making decisions based on a perceived sense of morals and ethics etc. I think this label should be reserved for those individuals who are not motivated by morality or ethics but instead possess a malicious intent or are motivated by hatred or bare prejudice against individuals or groups. Otherwise, anyone can be arbitrarily labeled a bigot for one reason or another, simply because they take a public stand on an issue that one does not agree with and that runs contrary to ones own views. ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
AIG writes:
I'm just trying to locate the landscape whereupon bigotry is played out. When special groups impose their agendas on the public-at-large are they treading on a bigotry landscape? I've never heard so much sputtering accusations of bigotry as that which comes from the foaming mouths of gay-marriage advocates. But even they are less vicious than those who would deprive a woman of her rightful access to heath care. I'd say Pharmacist Phil is as much a bigot for denying a woman access to Plan B as Hitler was for denying the Jews access to any health care all. The point is that your example has nothing to do with bigotry. ”HM Edited by Hoot Mon, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4746 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
I'm not too concerned with whom it is who applies the coercive pressure to an independent agent. The justification for licensing pharmacists is to assure that they aren't passing out chicken heads to cure lumbago. That seems to be a legitimate function of government. But that the government piles on questionable demands on the grounds that it is a regulated industry is rather circular in its thinking.
Edited by lyx2no, : Grammar. Kindly Everyone deserves a neatly dug grave. It is the timing that's in dispute. ‘—
|
|||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4746 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
Pharmacist Phil has the power to deny a woman her legal access to prescribed birth-control medication. Phil should be in the business of filling prescriptions without prejudice toward those who oppose his POV. Phil, by my estimation, is doing exactly what gay-marriage advocates are doing: proselytizing an agenda with the accusation that anyone who opposes it is a bigot. Phil only has the power to deny a woman from getting the pill from him. Phil should be in the business Phil decides to be in. It's is called self-determination. Larry, the gay rights advocate, is attempting to remove a restriction placed on him by his own government to limit his peaceful activities. It's called self-determination. So the answer to my question was: "No, I do not recognize that there is a significant difference between forcing others to live by standards not their own and not facilitating their standards." Why do you think it's up to you to decide what everyone is supposed to do? Can I take my mum up to the shops now? Can I tell her it's okay by you for her to buy eggs, extra large eggs? Edited by lyx2no, : Misplaced negation. Kindly Everyone deserves a neatly dug grave. It is the timing that's in dispute. ‘—
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
lyx2no writes:
Could it be because I have a superior POV?
Why do you think it's up to you to decide what everyone is supposed to do? Can I take my mum up to the shops now? Can I tell her it's okay by you for her to buy eggs, extra large eggs?
Your mum is probably too old for Plan B, so Pharmacist Phil is no real threat her. But don't take her up to Capitol Hill in Seattle unless she wants to watch unmarried gay men stick their tongues down each other's throat. Might make her gag, if not drop an egg over that. ”HM Edited by Hoot Mon, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Artemis Entreri  Suspended Member (Idle past 4259 days) Posts: 1194 From: Northern Virginia Joined: |
All Phil is doing is not keeping it stocked. its against the law in some states to refuse to sell the drug due to personal moral issues, but simply not carrying the drug because you "forget" to order every month is not illegal.
It's not a numbers game, dude. The Constitution was designed so that issues wouldn't be solved on the basis of numbers. The five people Phil might affect have just as much right to fair treatment as the many thousands Larry would effect. So, the only question is whether Phil's treatment is fair, not whether he will affect as many people.
Im not calling larry a bigot, but i am calling him wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4746 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
Larry on the other hand is trying to make a law which will effect everyone in his area. Phil may effect 5 people a year. You have yet to establish that Gay Marriage laws would "effect" anyone who isn't gay. One is not effected by a law unless one is required to act or is permitted or restricted from acting in a way that did not exist prior to the enactment of the law. Unless it is your argument that since straight people will also be permitted to enter into gay marriages it shouldn't be allowed I don't see that you have an argument. Kindly Everyone deserves a neatly dug grave. It is the timing that's in dispute. ‘—
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2728 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Artemis.
Artemis Entreri writes: Im not calling larry a bigot, but i am calling him wrong. Okay: I also didn't say you said he was a bigot. But, I apologize if I misunderstood you. Still, when you say this...
Artemis Entreri, msg #12, writes: Larry on the other hand is trying to make a law which will effect everyone in his area. Phil may effect 5 people a year. ...you're backing up Phil, whose actions are affecting five people a year, on the basis that his actions aren't affecting as many people as Larry's actions. To me, that sounds like you're playing a numbers game. I disagree with you, though, because I don't see how legalizing gay marriage would affect anybody but gay people. Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Artemis Entreri  Suspended Member (Idle past 4259 days) Posts: 1194 From: Northern Virginia Joined: |
i really wasn't trying to make an argument here. the OP was open ended and asked a couple questions which i have answered.
i dont think either are bigots, yet i disagree with what larry is doing. if larry lived in my community i would peacefully act in opposition to him, like two americans excersizing thier abilties to disagree on an issue. Though in my community Larry would not have much support.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Artemis Entreri  Suspended Member (Idle past 4259 days) Posts: 1194 From: Northern Virginia Joined: |
Okay: I also didn't say you said he was a bigot. But, I apologize if I misunderstood you. Still, when you say this...
i know you didn't. no harm no foul. i dont call anyone a bigot, that word is basically not in my vocabulary.
...you're backing up Phil, whose actions are affecting five people a year, on the basis that his actions aren't affecting as many people as Larry's actions. To me, that sounds like you're playing a numbers game.
yeah phil affects maybe 5 people one year, then word gets out that Phil's Pharmacy does not sell that drug, nobody goes to phil for that drug, they go elsewhere. Larry wants to change a law for his benefit, that will affect everyone to whom it applies. yeah i guess numbers have some issue in it for me really trying to stay away from the same gender marriage thing, because that thread was closed. whats the point of opening a new thread that is the same as the last one that was closed? Edited by Artemis Entreri, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
What right have I, or you, to impose our ideologies on others? What right have others to impose their ideologies on us?
None, if you prefer anarchy. Whatever our differences you are obviously not an idiot. As such this comment is beneath you. Ommitting ideology from law making whilst promoting rationality, reason and pragmatism as the basis for the rule of law is obviously not advocating anarchy. Do you really think that ideology rather than rationality, reason and pragamatism should be the basis of law?I doubt it. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
In that case the threshold of bigotry is predicated on the belief that the term "marriage" should apply to civil unions beyond the heterosexual kind. Who decides what is "excluded on irrational grounds"? Who puts the coordinates on the bigotry landscape? If a person opposes polygamy is he a bigot, too? On what rational grounds, as opposed to ideological grounds, should homosexual couples be denied the same legal rights as heterosexual couples?Are there rationalgrounds on which to deny polygamists the same rights as couples? These are the questions to ask. What are your answers? Is it bigoted to ask: Why can't gays be happy with a DP (domestic partnership) status if it does everything legal for them that a civil union does for married heterosexuals? (I've been accused of bigotry for asking such a question.) I don't think asking the question alone makes you a bigot. Not accepting an answer to this question that you do not like on ideological grounds would however make you a bigot.
My new definition of a bigot: Anyone who is so indisposed by his or her beliefs that he or she must invoke the term "bigot" against holders of an adversarial opinion. A definition very convenient to your argument.However a definition of the term 'bigot' that ignores the practical aspects of inflicting irrational restrictions on the freedoms and actions of others seems to be somewhat lacking in practical terms. No? Edited by Straggler, : No reason given. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Straggler writes:
Mr. Straggler, I'm sorry to have to tell you that all forms of government except anarchy impose their ideologies on the people they rule. HM writes:
Whatever our differences you are obviously not an idiot. As such this comment is beneath you. Straggler writes:
What right have I, or you, to impose our ideologies on others? What right have others to impose their ideologies on us? None, if you prefer anarchy.”HM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024