On the Threshold of Bigotry

The legality or otherwise is not a factor of my argument.
If the rights of others are restricted due to irrational prejudice then, by my argument, that is wrong.
Whether the law allows it or not is irrelevant.The white guy in your scenario can hate the black guy all he wants. I disagree but that is his right to his opinion. And I would fight for him to have and to express that right. As long as his hatred is not manifested such that he restricts the rights of anybody else he should be free to have any damn opinion he chooses no mater how irrational, ideological or downright stupid I might consider it to be. Defining the word 'bigot' might help in terms of clarity but is a means to an end not an end in itself.
By your definition I would defend the rights of bigots to be bigots.As long as the rights of others are not affected by the bigotry in question.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

You have failed to define what bigotry is. Look at this vague little gem of wisdom here:

quote:

---

You become a bigot when you ACT (or want to act) to deny someone something that you yourself are not denied.

---

I'm not denied my race. Neither is anyone else denied their race. In fact, I can't deny anyone their race. There is not a single, solitary thing I can do about their race whatsoever. So by your vague definition, no one who intensely dislikes Asian people can ever be a bigot. The only way I can be a bigot, according to you, is if I somehow deny them their race.

quote:

---

If disagreeing with someone is all it took to be a bigot, then as you state, everyone would be a bigot..and then of what value is the word?

---

The qualifier for bigotry is not merely disliking something, as you say. I would agree. The qualifier is utter intolerance; total, unyielding intolerance of anything contrary to one's own belief. That is bigotry, and that is what gives value to the word. So as long as someone doesn't want to deny them the right to marry, they cease to become a bigot? If you seek to deny prisoners the right to marry, do you then become a bigot towards prisoners? So if I walked up to a homosexual and called him a faggot, I would not be a bigot. I would only be a bigot if I said that I don't want him to get married. Totally! In summary you have failed to explain what bigotry is. Your qualifier fails, your definition fails, and it is logically inconsistent from start to finish.Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : No reason given.

---

“I know where I am and who I am. I'm on the brink of disillusionment, on the eve of bitter sweet. I'm perpetually one step away from either collapse or rebirth. I am exactly where I need to be. Either way I go towards rebirth, for a total collapse often brings a rebirth." -Andrew Jaramillo

"Should be?" In your subjective opinion perhaps."...the very practical need to avoid" is the nub of your ideology. But it doesn't deal with the claim of those whose ideology couldn't give a fig about the avoidance of conflict - indeed, their ideology may well necessitate conflict.I have said an ideology such as you promote here is irrational - not least because it would fold as soon as anothers conflict-based ideology threatened to take over and conquer what you considered to be yours. See above. That founding principle is your subjective one (in the case of a lack of God to establish it for us all). What constitutes pragmatic depends upon the ideology one is seeking to promote.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

OK, now you're just being an ass. Since, as you admit, you cannot deny someone their race, then obviously it's a stupid (i.e. impossible) comparison to bring up. You are a bigot, however, if you want to deny one race (or another) something that you are not denied...and base this upon their race. Like...oh gee...I don't know...maybe saying something like blacks cannot drink out of the same drinking fountain as whites...or that blacks cannot sit in the same seats on a bus as white people. You know, things like that. Or maybe locking someone up in a detention camp based solely on their race. But you cannot be intolerant with words alone Nemesis Juggernaut. You have to actually DO (or want to do) SOMETHING to express that intolerance or again, it has no meaning.Can you really see no difference between not liking homosexual marriage and wanting to deny homosexuals the right to marry. Are you really that dense? Basically yes. Is there a legitimate reason to deny prisoners the right to marry...other than the simple fact that they are indeed prisoners? None that I can think of. So denying prisoners their basic right (as defined by SCOTUS) to marry, simply because you dislike prisoners and don't want to allow them to get married would make you a bigot. Denying homosexual marriage was only an example. Did I say anywhere that the only form of bigotry on the planet was in denying homosexual marriage? Why are you being such an asshole? Bullshit. You bring up impossibilities (denying race) and then use them as examples to disprove a premise that I never brought up. I pulled this little gem out of your opening paragraph so I could deal with it individually. What in the fuck are you talking about? How the hell to you come to this rather absurd conclusion based on anything I said? Did you forget that part where mentioned that you had to do something?Look, Nemesis Juggernaut...try reading this time...disliking Asians does not make you a bigot. That's not that same as saying that you cannot ever become a bigot however. Denying Asians the same basic human rights that you are afforded is certainly one way that you could become a bigot. Lock em up in a detention camp because they're Asians, and yes, I would call you a bigot. Deny them housing in your neighborhood because they're Asian (or black, or homosexual), and yes...I'd call you a bigot. But just saying you hate Asians would not, in and of itself, make you a bigot.

Why should we accept your definition over the dictionary's? Its not that I forget, its that I don't accept your definition.And by your definition, I wasn't a bigot in the last gay marriage thread. But that didn't stop you from calling me one. And by the dictionary's definition, that makes you a bigot.According to your definition of bigotry, if I don't think that gays have a right to marriage in the first place, would that count as denying them a right? Because if someone doesn't have a right to something, and I argue that they do not have that right, I don't see that as denying their right, I see that as pointing out their lack of a right. Can't you only deny a right to someone when they do have the right, but you just don't want to give it to them?

Heaven forbid i dont listen to the guy (Rrhain) who tries to put words into my mouth, strawman me, and constantly uses snarky language.Bigot - when a conservative is winning an arguement with a liberal.

No. My argument transcends this assertion of yours in a very rational sense.
The point you are missing is that I am a keen proponent of the right to irrational and ideological belief.THE HUMAN CONDITION
We are all human. We are all, including myself, irrational, ideological creatures. This is a fact. I do not deny this fact. I embrace it. To do otherwise is to seek to define us as Vulcan like creatures of logic and rationality. Arguably automatons incapable of creative and original thought.THE RATIONALE OF IRRATIONALITY
If we accept that we are all subject to irrational ideology ad we know that the irrational ideologies of others are inevitably going to oppose our own how are we to proceed?
We could seek to promote our own ideology at the expense of all others. We could seek to wipe-out the opposition to our own ideologies. However in such a system of governance how can we ensure that it is not our own ideological beliefs that are on the receiving end of such treatment?
The simple answer is that we cannot. How then are we best able to protect our own right to hold our own irrational and ideological beliefs?A WORLD OF COMPROMISE
The answer is to promote the right of the individual to hold whatever ideological and irrational beliefs they deem fit. If such a system of governance is in place then, by definition, my own rights to my own ideological beliefs are protected. However this security comes with a price.
If any one ideology is excluded on purely ideological grounds then there is no guarantee that my own ideology cannot itself be excluded. Thus to protect my own rights and beliefs I am logically and pragmatically required to defend the rights of others to their individual ideologies and beliefs. No matter how much I may disagree with the specific belief in question I am forced to advocate the right to that belief. For the very practical, very pragmatic and very real protection of my own rights to my own ideological beliefs. Logically any ideology that seeks to conquer is itself subject to being conquered by the very foundations of its own belief in the need or desire to conquer other ideologies.A pragmatic approach necessitates tolerance of other ideologies such that ones own ideological beliefs are protected.CONCLUSION
The pragmatic approach to ensuring ones own right to ones own beliefs necessitates tolerance to the beliefs of others.
In terms of practical application this means ensuring the rights of others to believe and act upon their own ideological beliefs as long as those actions do not in themselves compromise the right of others to do exactly the same thing.GAY MARRIAGE
In other words ideologies that restrict the freedoms of others where those freedoms in no way adversely affect the freedoms of anyone else should have the same right to expression as any other ideology. They should not however be applied in any practical sense.Those who seek to restrict gay marriage have every right to express their opinion in my view. However, based on the arguments above, no such ideological belief should be the basis of law or any other practical application of irrational prejudice.Enjoy.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Bigot: Those who advocate the restriction of the rights of others where the rights in question in no way adversely affect the rights of anyone else.Invariably conservatives.You can define words until we are all blue in the face. It is concepts, principles and pragmatic arguments that are important. The fact that the anti-gay marriage contingent within this thread are obsessed with defining words suggests to me that they know they have no real case. Forget the dictionary definition debate. It is pointless, tedious and evasive.Why should your ideology be imposed such that it restricts the rights and freedoms of homosexuals in ways that have no effect on the rights or freedoms of others at all?

Bigot: Those who advocate the restriction of the rights of others where the rights in question in no way adversely affect the rights of anyone else.Invariably conservatives.You can define words until we are all blue in the face. It is concepts, principles and pragmatic arguments that are important. The fact that the anti-gay marriage contingent within this thread are obsessed with defining words suggests to me that they know they have no real case. Forget the dictionary definition debate. It is pointless, tedious and evasive.Why should your ideology be imposed such that it restricts the rights and freedoms of homosexuals in ways that have no effect on the rights or freedoms of others at all?

Does it really matter.You can define words until we are all blue in the face. It is concepts, principles and pragmatic arguments that are important. The fact that the anti-gay marriage contingent within this thread are obsessed with defining words suggests to me that they know they have no real case. Forget the dictionary definition debate. It is pointless, tedious and evasive.Why should your ideology be imposed such that it restricts the rights and freedoms of homosexuals in ways that have no effect on the rights or freedoms of others at all?Whether or not this is called bigotry, prejudice or just plain opinion has no real effect on the underlying arguments for or against the right to impose restrictions on the rights of others.

Hey NJ I know the definition of bigot has been listed elsewhere on this thread, but we haven't traded barbs for awhile, so... Your argument would hold if the definition of intolerant was simple disagreement or dislike, but it is not.From Merriam-webster:

quote:

---

Main Entry:
in·tol·er·ant Listen to the pronunciation of intolerant
Pronunciation:
\-rnt\
Function:
adjective
Date:
circa 1735

​

1: unable or unwilling to endure
2 a: unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious matters
b: unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights : bigoted

---

Do you see the 2b. definition? The one that is listed as synonymous with bigoted?I have searched many different dictionaries online for the definition of bigotry and the definition almost invariably includes the word "intolerant." And intolerance doesn't mean simple disagreement.A bigot is someone who is "utterly intolerant" of differences and intolerance indicates a complete rejection (especially in the face of reason) and/or refusal to allow differing opinions, beliefs, etc. It is not a mere dislike or a mere disagreement which is what Straggler, FliesOnly and others have been arguing here.Bigotry is something much stronger than that and, as m-w states, it requires an unwillingness to endure (a strong word in itself which indicates a hardship which most likely would be actively fought against) or to share rights.Which is what has been said all along.{ABE: Happy belated our birthday! I turned the big 30. Hope it was a good one!}Edited by Jaderis, : Birthday wishes to NJ.

---

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London"Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea

It's not my definition. It's that you guys can't seem to understand what the definition means. I'm just trying to explain what, to everyone else, is a simple concept. You can try to deny your bigotry all you want. You can call me a bigot all you want. It doesn't change anything. Disagreeing with someone does not, in and of itself, make you a bigot. It's really quite simple.Look, I'm sorry that you and NJ and and HM, AE are bigots when it comes to homosexuals. Truly I am. I would like nothing more than for you guys to simply agree that there is no reason, whatsoever, to deny homosexuals the right to marry one another. But for your own personal reasons, you guys seem to think that gays should not allowed to get married (I know, I know...you keep saying you don't care, but at the same time you're in favor of laws that prevent it from happening, so spare me if I don't believe you). I have no idea why...but it doesn't matter. You want to deny one group of people a right that you have. That makes you a bigot. I disagree with you...that does NOT make me a bigot. Man...talk about twisted logic. So let me see if I have this correct. We simply state that gays do not have the right to marry. This, of course, makes you a bigot. Then, when we find out that gays actually do have that right, so we draft some legislation, and re-define some terms in such a manner that it becomes impossible for gays to marry one another...and then by doing that, you can stop being a bigot, because now they no longer have that right? Nice one Catholic Scientist.You see, here's the problem with you rather bizarre way of trying to get around being a bigot, simply because you feel that gays do not have the right to marry. Some things are simply not available to others. I cannot, for example, give birth. Therefore, you could not be considered a bigot if you felt that I do not have the right to give birth. I do not have that right because it is physically impossible to have that right.Gays, however, are in no way blocked from being allowed to get married, except by people like yourself that find the idea repulsive, or against their religious believes, or are closet homosexuals that don't want to face up to that fact...or whatever. So for you to simply state that they do not have the right, doesn't really get you off the hook. Why don't they have that right? Well, because bigoted assholes drafted legislationa and re-defined some terms so that gay were denied that right. Or do you have some other reason as to why gays should be denied the right to marry one another?What I would like is for you to explain to me why Nemesis Juggernaut, Artemis Entreri, and Hoot Mon are not bigots. We all know why you feel that you are not a bigot. But I'm curious as to what you think of Nemesis Juggernaut, Hoot Mon, and Artemis Entreri, and why you feel that they are not bigoted towards homosexuals. Or do you think that they are bigots?

Well, your definition certainly explains a lot. Plus it speaks volumes about Conservatives, and why this Country is in the current state that it is.So thanks for reaffirming my dislike of the Conservative Party with your flippant, yet telling, retort. Edited by FliesOnly, : No reason given.

The assertion was rational.You are keen to assign these "rights" (not that it is up to you to do so in any absolute sense) up to a point. You might well tolerate a certain amount of inconvenience from those who are expressing irrational (to your mind) ideological belief. But there will come a point where you decide that your ability to express your own ideology is being compromised beyond tolerance and you will stand to restrict the "rights" you now campaign to assign.The ideology is thus irrational in the sense that it floats so longs as it's outworkings suit your book. It sinks as soon they don't.As will be revealed in your message, I suspect.- Agreed. Although I wouldn't suppose that we can't be rational. An irrational ideology to one might be perfectly rational to another. Barring some absolute judge of rationality, rationality often lies only in the eye of the beholder.- War?- Total War?- Keep ahead of ones enemy in terms of weaponry?. I'm not being deliberately smart, it's just that the march of history shows us mankind as it has always behaved).There is also room for compromise. The reality is that a balance is always found between the expense and hassle of war vs. the discomfort that comes with compromise.But I see you got there before me..- Right, we have moved from the nation vs. nation sphere into the individual realm. Not that anything is fundamentally altered. The nation I live in becomes the canvas on which "wars and compromise" are played out. It is true that I can take the stance you suggest in order that my own ideology find satisfactory levels of expression - this might include objectionable aspects of others ideologies being expressed.But what if my own ideology isn't finding expression sufficient under this laissez-faire regieme? What if my satisfaction requires less "compromise" and more "war"? What if I am prepared to have others ideologies suppressed if it means my own undergoing expansion? What if I am prepared to "die" in the attempt?(ps: don't take the "language" to literally - I'm simply carrying on the national analogy to logical conclusions)My ideology could desire society to be a certain way, a way that it currently isn't under the laissez-faire regieme and so I begin to press home my own wishes. I'd use the various "weaponry" at my disposal; legislation, campaigning, media, money, power, etc to achieve the suppression of other ideologies necessary to furtherance my own. You would agree that if the Expression of Ideology pie is limited and you want a bigger slice then someone will have to give up their share (not that it's anyone share to start with - no one has a right to assign rights).- That's a risk I should be free to be willing to take. Rationally speaking, I am free to take those risks.- Central to the rationale here is you in the driving seat. But what if you come up against someone who embarked on the ideology described by me here? One that sought to suppress yours in order to rise above yours.Can I suggest you'd alter your idealogy in a way that would align more closely to mine? Certainly the gay marriage lobby in Ireland are very well organised and are applying no small expertise in the application of the various "weapons of war"- Logically your ideology is similarily subject to be conquered by the foundations of the ideology described by me here. It's not as if the world has never known war nor will never know it again. There really is nothing new under the sun.- The alternative approach is survival of the fittest. This may necessitate compromise as well as war - whatever works best in achieving own ends is best. If the history of the world tells us anything it tells us that this way is the way it has forever been.If you have a "right" to your ideology - and the way in which you establish, maintain and propagate it then rationally speaking I have that same "right". There is no rational difference. The irrationality begins as soon as yours is pushed at by mine and you begin to complain or shout "bigot".For are you not doing precisely the same as me, playing things in such a way as to best protect and support your preferred ideology. You find compromise does that - but are prepared for more war when push comes to shove. I find too much compromise has taken place w.r.t. where I would like my ideology to be, and so it's time to go to war - just as the gay marriage lobby are doing.- Your goal is to protect your ideology. You would support the law against gay marriage being changed because you suppose this to better protect your own ideology (irrespective of your personal views on gay marriage perhaps). Your ideological view would be sustained or advanced by such a move.My view is also ideological and I want the law to remain as it is (in Ireland) in order to better sustain my view. If anyone has rights to go to war/compromise in order to advance their cause, then both have those rights.I'm not sure if it's to yourself I made these comments but "restriction in personal freedom" isn't the only consideration that warrants attention (at least not in my ideology). Society can have particular 'flavours' and I can act ideologically in order to maintain the current flavour or change the flavour to another. All in accordance with the kind of society I desire to live in.If this means restricting the freedom of others to have the flavour that they want then so be it. Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Phew. Long and well articulated post. I will start a response but may have to respond more fully later. Hopefully so was my response. When I say irrational ideological belief I am talking about POV whereby the rationale cannot go beyond the "I believe it to be so" argument. Hoot has expressed his objections to gay marriage in exactly these terms. Without a stated rationale for a belief there can be no debate. It becomes a pointless game of dictionary definitions as to who is a bigot and who is not.
If an argument can be structured of the form "I believe it to be so because......" then we can examine the 'because' on each side of the debate and apply a degree of rationality to the decision that is made thus facilitating at least the potential for objectivity.Even a self deluding veneer of rationality covering an obviously ideological position (as politicians do all the time) allows debate to take place and the relative strengths and weaknesses of the arguments to be exposed. Yes this is true. To state that my own rights are being infringed by the freedoms of others is indeed my right. And vice versa. And this is indeed undeniably subjective. As I have stated a few times previously I do not claim that what I am advocating is uncontentious where opposing freedoms are concerned.
Such a basis does however allow for independent and objective arbitration. It is up to us to implement the social structures of law such that they are respected and such that decisions are believed to be taken in the long term best interests of all. Courts, juries, parliaments, congress etc. etc. etc. None are perfect but no free democracy is possible without such arbitrating and lawmaking bodies. no No NO!! The whole point is that I am subject to the same restrictions of not infringing the freedoms of others as anyone else. I am subject to the same, hopefully objective, arbitration procedures in disputes as anyone else.When sharing cake with my brother my mum used to make me cut the cake in half and then my brother choose the piece he wanted. It was obviously in my own interest to make the portions as equitable as possible.This is no different. The individual ideologies of all are best served individually by the promotion of a fair and trusted system of tolerance and arbitration. The total annhilation of all those who oppose your own ideology?
Is there another human being who shares all your exact irrational thoughts and ideologies? Anyone who agrees with you perfectly?
Can you guarantee that in attempting to wipe out all opposing ideologies your own will itself not be wiped out?
The logical end result of this is either a very lonely and solitary existence after having wiped out everyone else or, more likely, the complete removal of yourself and your own ideology. Yes and in doing so many ideologies have been wiped out. If you are prepared to risk that your own ideology will be wiped out in order to follow this course then so be it.
If instead of cutting the metaphorical cake evenly you choose to grab the cake and stab your brother then at the next cake cutting session you had better hope that it is you holding the knife again!!!
I am not claiming to describe things as they are. I am suggesting that my "laissez-faire regieme" (as you call it) is the most rational and practical approach to ensuring the long term continuation of your own rights and freedoms (and those of your family, nation or whatever other grouping you consider yourself to be a member of)
If that is not your aim then none of this applies at all. Yes in historical international terms I agree that is how things have developed. But after the second world war there seems to have been a much more appetite for my less antagonistic approach. The setup of the UN, the rebuilding of the war torn nations that had been the enemy etc. etc. etc. Alas the lessons hard learnt seem to be slipping by the wayside.
Would you choose the way things have been or the way I am proposing? That is the question?
How should we structure ourselves and on what basis is my question, NOT how have we structured ourselves (except where these provide lessons as to how we should move forwards)More later.........