Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   On the Threshold of Bigotry
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 1 of 333 (475097)
07-13-2008 11:43 AM


Respectfully submitted on behalf of those who ask: When do minority opinions become so correct and true that those who hold them can call those who don’t “bigots”?
A case in point:
Pharmacist Phil is a born-again Christian and he bitterly opposes abortion in any form, including Plan B”the morning-after pill. So, Pharmacist Phil decides not to stock Plan B, thusly denying women access to all legal birth-control measures. Is Pharmacist Phil right or wrong? Is he a bigot or an anti-bigot?
It all depends on your predisposed opinion of legalized abortion.
Lawyer Larry is a natural-born homosexual and he strongly advocates gay rights. So, Lawyer Larry uses his professional skills to promote the legalization of gay marriage, even though it would compromise, in the collective mind of the majority, the true meaning of the term “marriage.” Is Lawyer Larry right or wrong? Is he a bigot or an anti-bigot?
It all depends on your predisposed opinion of legalized gay marriage.
Here is a case where two groups that oppose each other do exactly what they accuse each other of doing. And in the course of such disputes someone calls another a "bigot." But just where is that threshold of bigotry? And who decides its proper location and orientation?
”HM

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Straggler, posted 07-13-2008 12:27 PM Fosdick has replied
 Message 10 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 07-14-2008 1:18 AM Fosdick has replied
 Message 67 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-16-2008 5:12 PM Fosdick has not replied
 Message 68 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-16-2008 5:13 PM Fosdick has replied
 Message 133 by Rrhain, posted 07-19-2008 7:45 PM Fosdick has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 2 of 333 (475111)
07-13-2008 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Fosdick
07-13-2008 11:43 AM


Liberty
As an initial comment to throw into the mix I would say denying the rights of individuals on idealogical grounds and forcing others to conform to your personal viewpoint in practical terms defines uncceptability and bigotry in the two examples you give.
Pharmacist Phil is a born-again Christian and he bitterly opposes abortion in any form, including Plan B”the morning-after pill. So, Pharmacist Phil decides not to stock Plan B, thusly denying women access to all legal birth-control measures.
If pharmacist Phil fundamentally disagrees with abortion and the morning after pill I don't see how forcing him to sell it helps anyone. I fundamentally disagree with his view and think measures should be taken to ensure that women have access to such medical facilities (without relying on the whims of religious pharmacists). However forcing fundamentalist Christians to actively participate in 'selling abortion' is not going to do anyone any good.
Is Pharmacist Phil right or wrong? Is he a bigot or an anti-bigot?
If Phil just happened to be a pharmacist who has these views and finds himself in this situation then I don't think Phil is a bigot. Wrong in my mind. But entitled to his opinion.
If Phil set out to become a pharmacist such that he could foist his anti-abortion views on others and intentionally deny them their legal rights then that is a different matter. Then he is behaving like a bigot.
However forcing Phil to sell the morning after pill I would also deem to be unacceptable as it overrides his personal choices in this matter. This could arguably be considered as an act of 'bigotry' against Phil and his fundamentalist views I suppose.
Lawyer Larry is a natural-born homosexual and he strongly advocates gay rights. So, Lawyer Larry uses his professional skills to promote the legalization of gay marriage, even though it would compromise, in the collective mind of the majority, the true meaning of the term “marriage.” Is Lawyer Larry right or wrong? Is he a bigot or an anti-bigot?
The right to marry ones lover and sexual partner is a right that heterosexual couples have. To deny this to others of homosexual orientation on idealogical grounds seems, to me, to be an obvious act of bigotry.
Unlike Phil, no active participation in that which is being proposed is required of those that disagree with gay marriage.
Larry is not forcing anyone who disagrees with gay marriage to actively facilitate it in any practical sense. Thus I don't see how he can be accused of bigotry.
In my mind it is all about equal rights to make individual personal choices.
Phil - Should not be able to force his anti abortion views on the actions of others. Nor should he have his actions decided by the pro-abortion views of others.
Larry - Is fighting for the rights of gays to have the same freedoms as heterosexuals in terms of legally bonding with their partners. He is not fighting to reduce the rights of heterosexuals or foist his views into the personal choices of heterosexuals as to how they behave.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Fosdick, posted 07-13-2008 11:43 AM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Fosdick, posted 07-13-2008 7:35 PM Straggler has replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 3 of 333 (475167)
07-13-2008 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Straggler
07-13-2008 12:27 PM


Liberty and Opinionation
I'd say the threshold of bigotry is a measure of the disparity between two opposing POVs. The threshold comes when one holder of a POV becomes irrationally intolerant of the other's POV. But in the end it's all about opinion, not about the relevant and historical facts in the case.
Straggler writes:
I would say denying the rights of individuals on idealogical grounds and forcing others to conform to your personal viewpoint in practical terms defines uncceptability and bigotry in the two examples you give.
I must agree, but I am unsure as to which side of either argument holds the bigoted POV.
If Phil just happened to be a pharmacist who has these views and finds himself in this situation then I don't think Phil is a bigot. Wrong in my mind. But entitled to his opinion.
I'd say he was a Christian bigot for forcing his POV on his customers.
The right to marry ones lover and sexual partner is a right that heterosexual couples have. To deny this to others of homosexual orientation on idealogical grounds seems, to me, to be an obvious act of bigotry.
Your threshold of bigotry is predicated on a belief that there is some other version of "marriage" besides the heterosexual kind. Such a belief begs an accurate definition of "marriage." If I define it as a civil union between a man and a woman, and if another defines it as a civil union between same sexes as well as opposite sexes, one of us is going to be called a bigot.
Whatever the threshold of bigotry is, if there is one, it is a threhold on a landscape of opinionation.
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Straggler, posted 07-13-2008 12:27 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Straggler, posted 07-13-2008 7:55 PM Fosdick has replied
 Message 5 by Straggler, posted 07-13-2008 8:25 PM Fosdick has replied
 Message 6 by lyx2no, posted 07-13-2008 8:26 PM Fosdick has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 4 of 333 (475170)
07-13-2008 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Fosdick
07-13-2008 7:35 PM


Re: Liberty and Opinionation
If Phil just happened to be a pharmacist who has these views and finds himself in this situation then I don't think Phil is a bigot. Wrong in my mind. But entitled to his opinion.
I'd say he was a Christian bigot for forcing his POV on his customers.
And yet if he is forced to do something against his strongly held beliefs (i.e. sell the morning after pill in this case) the he is being personally oppressed himself.
I would not force a Jewish butcher to sell pork!!
By personally sticking to his beliefs he is not oppressing anyone as long as he does not directly interfere with the ability of others to fulfill their personal choices in ways that do not directly affect his personal choices.
The right to marry ones lover and sexual partner is a right that heterosexual couples have. To deny this to others of homosexual orientation on idealogical grounds seems, to me, to be an obvious act of bigotry.
Your threshold of bigotry is predicated on a belief that there is some other version of "marriage" besides the heterosexual kind.
Marriage is a social construct and as such it is whatever we define it to be. Who defines marriage?
The very act of defining marriage such that it excludes gay couples is borne of irrational ideology and in itself the result of bigotry.
How else would you describe such a definition of marriage?
Such a belief begs an accurate definition of "marriage." If I define it as a civil union between a man and a woman, and if another defines it as a civil union between same sexes as well as opposite sexes, one of us is going to be called a bigot.
Yes. The one who defines marriage such that it excludes on irrational ideological grounds should be termed the bigot.
Bigotry and prejudice, in this context, are about restricting peoples personal choices based on irrational, ideological criteria.
The advocates of gay marriage in no way seek to restrict the personal choices or actions of heterosexual couples and thus cannot be the bigots in this particular scenario.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Fosdick, posted 07-13-2008 7:35 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Fosdick, posted 07-14-2008 11:48 AM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 5 of 333 (475172)
07-13-2008 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Fosdick
07-13-2008 7:35 PM


Re: Liberty and Opinionation
I'd say the threshold of bigotry is a measure of the disparity between two opposing POVs. The threshold comes when one holder of a POV becomes irrationally intolerant of the other's POV. But in the end it's all about opinion, not about the relevant and historical facts in the case.
I disagree. It is not simply a matter of disparity and intolerance. Sometimes intolerance is justified with regard to certain views.
And by that I do not just mean views that I happen to disagree with!!
Not all views are equal and not all intolerances are equally foundless. There are higher principles on which such matters can be decided.
RESTRICTION
Views that attempt to restrict the personal choices of others are not the same as views that attempt to promote the rights of others. POVs that force others to directly behave in ways that are based on ideologies that are not their own are, in my view, inherently wrong. No matter how disparate in view or intolerant of the opposition a promoter of personal rights may be I don't think they can ever be considered bigoted in the same way that a restricter of personal freedoms can be.
Restriction of the behaviour and rights of others is the hallmark of the sort of bigotry examples we are discussing.
EXAMPLE
I don't think a gay couple who passionately advocate gay marriage rights and are intolerant of those who oppose them are 'bigoted'. They may have disparate views to their opponents. They may be intolerant of their anti-gay opponents and their views. However they do not seek to restrict the personal freedoms or activities of their opponents or anyone else. They only seek to enhance their own personal freedoms at no expense to the personal freedoms of their opponents.
However the anti-gay marriage lobby seek to impose their ideology on others by restricting the personal freedoms and activities of others. Their own personal freedoms remain unchanged. These are, to my mind, bigots.
Gay marriage is just one example. I think that the principle of non-interference with the personal freedoms of others that have no direct adverse affect on your own personal freedoms should be the foundation of freedom. Even for those with views that I would potentially disagree with........
What right have I, or you, to impose our ideologies on others? What right have others to impose their ideologies on us?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Fosdick, posted 07-13-2008 7:35 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Fosdick, posted 07-14-2008 11:52 AM Straggler has replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 6 of 333 (475173)
07-13-2008 8:26 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Fosdick
07-13-2008 7:35 PM


Re: Liberty and Opinionation
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.
Larry isn't forcing anyone to do anything either.
Those who insist on being left to their peaceful activities are innocent.
Those who insist upon interfering with the peaceful activities of others are bigots.

Kindly
Everyone deserves a neatly dug grave. It is the timing that's in dispute.
‘—

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Fosdick, posted 07-13-2008 7:35 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by kjsimons, posted 07-13-2008 9:18 PM lyx2no has replied
 Message 17 by Fosdick, posted 07-14-2008 12:04 PM lyx2no has replied

kjsimons
Member
Posts: 821
From: Orlando,FL
Joined: 06-17-2003
Member Rating: 6.7


Message 7 of 333 (475176)
07-13-2008 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by lyx2no
07-13-2008 8:26 PM


Re: Liberty and Opinionation
Phil isn't requiring anyone to do anything other than doing it outside of his establishment, something he should have the right to do.
The problem here is that this may be fine in a large metropolitan area where there are many establishments to choose to do business with, but in rural areas this is tantamount to not providing the service and therefore enforcing you views on others. In other words, being a bigot! In the area of healthcare (which includes abortion) this it just unacceptable.
Edited by kjsimons, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by lyx2no, posted 07-13-2008 8:26 PM lyx2no has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by lyx2no, posted 07-13-2008 11:02 PM kjsimons has not replied
 Message 12 by Artemis Entreri, posted 07-14-2008 8:43 AM kjsimons has not replied

Grizz
Member (Idle past 5471 days)
Posts: 318
Joined: 06-08-2007


Message 8 of 333 (475189)
07-13-2008 10:45 PM


You will probably receive as many variations of answers to these questions as there are respondents.
The question isn't who's version of right or wrong on these matters is correct but, in a civil and democratic society, which groups position should have the final say?
In the US, the final arbiter of right or wrong on these matters are the courts, elected representatives, and various government agencies like the FDA. This is one of the purposes of any representative form of Democracy and really the only civil and practical way to resolve such disputes.
Everyone should have a say and this is accomplished in a number of ways -- electing representatives who will voice the views of the consistency that voted them in, state amendments voted on by state and local citizens etc.
I remember a while back when the abortion pill issue came up and some pharmacists stated they could not do something that violated their conscience on this matter. I believe the resolution was that the employers would not force the pharmacist to fill the prescription and it would be handed off to another pharmacist on duty. The FDA also ruled it must be made available to the public. At least that's how I remember it, I could be wrong.
On the topic of homosexual marriage, the issue is obviously playing itself out in the courts and on the state levels as we speak.
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.
Regarding the cases you presented, neither party is a bigot IMO.

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Fosdick, posted 07-14-2008 12:15 PM Grizz has not replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 9 of 333 (475191)
07-13-2008 11:02 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by kjsimons
07-13-2008 9:18 PM


Re: Liberty and Opinionation
. but in rural areas this is tantamount to not providing the service .
The size of the town is not Phil's problem. You're putting the onus of action on the wrong party. Being forced to provide a service against ones will is called slavery. I oppose slavery.

Kindly
Everyone deserves a neatly dug grave. It is the timing that's in dispute.
‘—

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by kjsimons, posted 07-13-2008 9:18 PM kjsimons has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 07-14-2008 1:48 AM lyx2no has replied

AnswersInGenitals
Member (Idle past 150 days)
Posts: 673
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 10 of 333 (475204)
07-14-2008 1:18 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Fosdick
07-13-2008 11:43 AM


Not an issue of bigotry.
HM asks: writes:
Pharmacist Phil is a born-again Christian and he bitterly opposes abortion in any form, including Plan B”the morning-after pill. So, Pharmacist Phil decides not to stock Plan B, thusly denying women access to all legal birth-control measures. Is Pharmacist Phil right or wrong? Is he a bigot or an anti-bigot?
The issue with Phil has nothing to do with bigotry. Bigotry is generally defined as holding a negative view or imposing a restriction on an individual or individuals based on aspect(s) of those individuals that have nothing to do with the relevant issue(s) at hand. Not placing urinals in the ladies bathroom is not an act of bigotry; it is an act based on relevant anatomy. Not placing them in a 'coloreds only' mens room is an act of bigotry, since urination has nothing to do with skin color. Phil denies the particular service to all his customers, irrespective of race, creed, color, religion, ethnicity, etc.
Phil's transgression is that in order to practice pharmacy, he has obtained a legal license for which he has promised to provide certain services to his community. If he refuses to comply with the conditions of his license, he is at risk of losing that license. I believe that the general way that the courts and licensing agencies have handled this is that if their is a reasonable alternative for the customer, e. g., an alternative readily accessible pharmacy, then Phil must inform the customer of this option; if there is no such reasonable alternative, then Phil must provided the service or surrender his license.
Some interesting special cases have been discussed for this issue: if, due to Phil's refusal to provide the requested service the customer, having no reasonable alternative, sees her pregnancy go to completion and has a baby, is Phil obligated to child support. Also, is a licensed gynecologist or gynecological clinic (of a Catholic hospital, for example) who/which morally objects to abortion required to perform such an abortion if requested? Again, my understanding is that the doctor or hospital is obliged to aid the client in finding a reasonable alternative source of abortion services. For the most part, almost all clients, doctors, hospitals, licensing agencies, and courts have tried to avoid the nuances of this issue like the plague and so there is still a lot of unsettled details of the legal landscape.
The point is that your example has nothing to do with bigotry.
Your example of gay marriage is also off base as an issue of bigotry. A marriage is just a legal contract formulated, endorsed, and enforced by each state. That is why both parties to the marriage must sign the marriage contract, agreeing to assume the obligations of the contract under threat of legal sanction. (Now, doesn't that sound romantic.) In no state, does the law code formulating the marriage contract explicitly state that a marriage must be between two members of different genders. On the other hand, none of these codes explicitly state the the marriage must be between members of the same species (although, until recently, many codes did explicitly state that the marriage must be between members of the same 'race'). However, all such codes to set age and sanity restrictions. So, the remaining issue is whether their is an implied restriction. The conservatives have pretty well shot themselves in the foot on this one by trying to forced through a Federal constitutional amendment restricting same sex marriage, essentially substantiating that current codes do not offer that restriction.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Fosdick, posted 07-13-2008 11:43 AM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Fosdick, posted 07-14-2008 12:32 PM AnswersInGenitals has not replied

AnswersInGenitals
Member (Idle past 150 days)
Posts: 673
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 11 of 333 (475207)
07-14-2008 1:48 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by lyx2no
07-13-2008 11:02 PM


Re: Liberty and Opinionation
Please read my previous post. Phil is not being forced to do anything. He has petitioned to obtain a legal license to practice as a pharmacist. He is obliged (and fully agrees to this in accepting the license) to serve his community in that capacity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by lyx2no, posted 07-13-2008 11:02 PM lyx2no has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by lyx2no, posted 07-14-2008 12:41 PM AnswersInGenitals has not replied

Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4228 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 12 of 333 (475228)
07-14-2008 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by kjsimons
07-13-2008 9:18 PM


Re: Liberty and Opinionation
The problem here is that this may be fine in a large metropolitan area where there are many establishments to choose to do business with, but in rural areas this is tantamount to not providing the service and therefore enforcing you views on others. In other words, being a bigot! In the area of healthcare (which includes abortion) this it just unacceptable.
I live in the country. what you are saying is not a factor. nice try Orlando, FL, but if this small town doesn't have it that one will. in the area of healthcare, people will either go to a hospital, or the doctor that gave them the prescription, WILL NOT SEND THEM TO PHIL.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by kjsimons, posted 07-13-2008 9:18 PM kjsimons has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Blue Jay, posted 07-14-2008 10:17 AM Artemis Entreri has not replied
 Message 24 by lyx2no, posted 07-14-2008 4:39 PM Artemis Entreri has replied

Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4228 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 13 of 333 (475229)
07-14-2008 8:46 AM


Your example of gay marriage is also off base as an issue of bigotry. A marriage is just a legal contract formulated, endorsed, and enforced by each state. That is why both parties to the marriage must sign the marriage contract, agreeing to assume the obligations of the contract under threat of legal sanction. (Now, doesn't that sound romantic.) In no state, does the law code formulating the marriage contract explicitly state that a marriage must be between two members of different genders. On the other hand, none of these codes explicitly state the the marriage must be between members of the same species (although, until recently, many codes did explicitly state that the marriage must be between members of the same 'race'). However, all such codes to set age and sanity restrictions. So, the remaining issue is whether their is an implied restriction. The conservatives have pretty well shot themselves in the foot on this one by trying to forced through a Federal constitutional amendment restricting same sex marriage, essentially substantiating that current codes do not offer that restriction.
i agree with you. but some 14th amendment fans are gonna jump out of the woodwork and call you names for that. I told them marriage was up to the states.
Edited by Artemis Entreri, : quote didnt take

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 14 of 333 (475241)
07-14-2008 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Artemis Entreri
07-14-2008 8:43 AM


Re: Liberty and Opinionation
Hi, Artemis.
Artemis Entreri writes:
I live in the country. what you are saying is not a factor. nice try Orlando, FL, but if this small town doesn't have it that one will.
No offense, dude, but "in the country" in Virginia doesn't have the same connotation as "in the country" in the West. I lived the last five years of my life in Utah, and there are places across southern Utah(where I worked), Wyoming, Nevada and western Texas where you could drive for over a hundred miles without running into a town, let alone a grocery store, only about one in five or six of which, I would say, even has a pharmacy. So, for some of us, the issue of distance and availability is a major factor.
Now, I'm not going to say that it would be bigotry on Phil's part to not supply a service (there are a lot of things you can't buy in southern Utah, but none of that is bigotry, either). However, if there was a demand or need for abortion pills in southern Utah or western Texas, and Phil, the only pharmacist for two hundred miles, refused to supply it, I might consider it a little inconsiderate or unfair of him. But, I don't think I could quite rationalize calling him a bigot for it.
Artemis Entreri 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.
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.

Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Artemis Entreri, posted 07-14-2008 8:43 AM Artemis Entreri has not replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 15 of 333 (475255)
07-14-2008 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Straggler
07-13-2008 7:55 PM


Re: Liberty and Opinionation
Straggler writes:
Yes. The one who defines marriage such that it excludes on irrational ideological grounds should be termed the bigot.
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?
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.)
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.
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Straggler, posted 07-13-2008 7:55 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Straggler, posted 07-14-2008 5:49 PM Fosdick has replied
 Message 136 by Rrhain, posted 07-19-2008 8:08 PM Fosdick has replied
 Message 143 by Taz, posted 07-19-2008 11:20 PM Fosdick has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024