On the Threshold of Bigotry

Once, in America, we believed that "the only good Indian was a dead Indian," and we used germ warfare in an attempt to exterminate them.If, in principle, a majority votes in a democracy to exterminate a race of people, then that's just how it comes down. It's neither moral nor immoral in the context of election results. It's what democracies to do”all of them”to protect themselves.But only one democracy I know of dropped nuclear weapons on civilian populations to protect itself. Whether or not that was morally justified will never be settled. Morality, which is the wellspring of bigotry, seems incurably relative. Therefore, the threshold of bigotry must be relative, too.”HM

---

If you got some quince, Pussycat, I got a runcible spoon.

I defend the rights of Black Panthers and Neo-Nazi's to march and to protest whatever it is they hate. But make no mistake, it bears no reflection on the fact that they are bigots. They are. It doesn't mean I will take away their right to the Freedom of Speech. So in other words you are not going to attempt to officially define bigotry, which is what was asked of you. Yes, it would help greatly if you defined bigotry, since the Dictionary just does not suffice for you. And that is a good thing, even if you don't agree with their ideological stance. I don't think any of us like the views of bigoted Neo-Nazi's. But disallowing them the access to the freedom of speech would be an injustice to the principles of freedom of speech.As for me, as it relates to gay marriage, I think that homosexuals should be able to retain civil unions. I don't think they should be married. It doesn't mean I hate homosexuals, it means I respect the institution of marriage. But under your narrow definition of bigotry, I'm somehow worse than they most intolerant Neo-Nazi.Something is definitely wrong here.

I agree entirely. I have spent most of this thread explaining why I believe the anti gay marriage position to be inferior in terms of fairness, reasonableness, prejudice, practicality, equality etc. etc. etc.The trouble with dictionary definitions is that you can usually find a dictionary with a broad enough definition to make almost any point you want.
Hoot is currently trying to defend any stance that is the majority opinion as non-bigoted. I am sure that he can give us a dictionary definition that supports his view. That does not make it any more valid in terms of any principle based argument however. We aree again Well no. Not really. When have I said that?
I think you have the right to have and to expres your gay marriage opinion.
I do think that the 'institution of marriage' is a social construct that is whatever we decide it to be.
I do think that laws should not be based on irrational prejudices and ideological assertions that canot be backed up by reason.
I do think that the law should be objective and should apply to all equally.Thus marriage should allow the union of two consenting adults equally without stipulating any conditions as to the colour, sex, age opinions or anything else of the people concerned.My 'definition' of bigotry is neither narrow nor does it make you worse than a neo-nazi.
It just argues that you are taking an irrational and prejudiced position which seeks to restrict the freedoms of others with regard to an action that has no effect whatsoever on your own personal freedoms and that you are seeking to enshrine this irrational, restrictive opinion in law in such a way that the law can must discriminate between different groupings on irrational grounds.

I would agree that this is what you have spent time trying to accomplish, but the thread is about bigotry and what it means. That isn't trouble, it's the reality of the situation. The trouble with people who use no concrete definitions is that it grants them the ability to manipulate and mangle a terminology so thoroughly that it bears no resemblance to what the actual definition is.Instead of being confined to a clear definition, they instead prefer loose ones that offer them the ability to make things up as they go -- something evidently FliesOnly is fond of.

quote:

---

But under your narrow definition of bigotry, I'm somehow worse than they most intolerant Neo-Nazi.

---

I was speaking in generalities in light of what Flies had said. I apologize if I have unfairly lumped you in with that. I did so anecdotally. What I meant is that, according to Flies, we can only be bigots if we attempt to take something away from someone else. Since a neo-nazi cannot take away the Jewishness of a person, or the blackness of a person, they somehow are better than people that merely question the social impact of allowing avowed homosexuals to marry. Something seems quite unbalanced about that, especially when I have no intent to harm a homosexual whereas the Nazi does.If it makes people feel better about their position to bash mine, as if they are morally superior, it really doesn't bother me all that much. For me to be called a bigot just makes me chuckle. I don't really care all that much because I know who I am.But I will point out the hypocrisy of someone referring to me as one without the sense to realize they consigned themselves the same fate they used to denigrate me with. Would you then consider yourself a bigot if you allowed this but disallowed incestuous marriages and/or polyamory? If restricting freedoms is a necessary requirement for bigotry, then judges who consign men and women to prison are all bigots by that pretense. Obviously that is silly, which by the logic and reason you esteem so highly, has no practical application in the real world. It is neither logical nor reasonable.Why not just let dictionary speak for itself? Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : typos

---

“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

Are you seriously suggesting that this was not a bigoted opinion? As I have explained elsewhere the naive view that democracy is simply majority rule ignores all the hard fought for principles of representation, freedom and justice that are, if anything even more fundamental to the whole shebang. A 'democracy' that can inflict whatever evils it chooses upon any given minority is a hollow shell of democracy and not worth fighting for.By your definition Hitler, widely regarded as the very human embodiment of bigotry, was not a bigot at all.If you are happy with a definition of bigotry that excludes Hitler then it just goes to show that definitions are no substitute for the weighing up of reasoned arguments.

I have tried to describe the positions for and against gay marriage, and prejudice more generally, in terms of reasoned arguments rather than definitions.Given that Hoot has just managed to convince himself of a ridiculous definition of bigot that excludes Hitler I am feeling kind of vindicated.... I have answered this elsewhere on this thread, but in short - The absence of practical or rational reasons for excluding specific groupings from equality in the eyes of the law is, in my view, bigotry.
However I think that the practical and rational reasons for excluding both incestuous marriages and polygomous marriages exist.Is there a practical or rational reason that applies to either of these two groupings that also applies to homosexual couples?
Not that I am aware of and none that have been presented here. It is about the irrational and ideological suppresion of freedoms which in no way affect the personal freedoms of others.
Freedoms have to be restricted for society to work.
It is the rationale (or lack of it) that defines bigotry as far as I am concerned. Whether you use the term bigot or not there is an inherent weakness in the argument that opposes gay marriage. Using dictionary definitions to hide this fact does not detract from this fact.
It is the arguments that matter not the definition of an evidently ambiguous term.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Well, it certainly was not a bigoted opinion during the Indians Wars. My point was that all bigotry is relative. Redskins, Yankees, Japs, Krouts, Hebes, Islamniacs, Wetbacks, and Queers”they're either bigoted for loving some or hating some, according to their POVs. It's all relative to where they stand on the threshold of bigotry. Was Jesus a bigot for proclaiming to be a Jewish king and messiah in the land of Caesar? Or was Caesar, through Pontius Pilote, a bigot for dispatching him to his fate?The only objective way to establish a threshold of bigotry is by an opinion survey, such as a vote. Are you ready to call a democratic majority a bunch of bigots for its opinion on, say, "gay marriage"? If so, you should be ready to call people bigots for opposing polygamy, incest, pedophilia, bestiality, dog fighting, chicken sacrifices, and post-mortem wedlock.Why are you so afraid to take the objective test? Would you prefer something other than the "tyranny of the majority," such as the tyranny of a dictatorship?”HM

---

If you got some quince, Pussycat, I got a runcible spoon.

If we took a democratic vote as to whether or not Hitler was a bigot what would the result be? If it was democratically decided that he was a bigot where would that leave your argument for majority rule which has determined that he is not a bigot? Objective?
A majority of bigots will inevitably vote for bigotry. If they have no rational reason to persecute others I will disagree on principle regadless of numbers and regardless of the cause in question. I have already answered this elswhere in this thread.
There are many rational and practical reasons for opposing these things. None of them applies to gay marriage.Although if you do have a rational reason that applies to these examples and also to gay couples I am willing to listen to it. Majority rule by decree is not objective.
By any measure of a free democracy it is not actually democratic either (but that is another thread, don't get me started again....)You are now defining 'bigotry', 'objective' and 'democracy' to suit your own ends.When will you actually make a reasoned argument to support your view instead of defining words to make your irrational prejudice sound superficially justified? No.
But is the tyranny of the majority, in principle, that much better?
I would prefer a true democracy that is founded on the principles of freedom, equality and the rule of objective unprejudiced law and arbitration.
Is not the idea of the US constitution to stop random governments ruling by majority decree at the expense of whatever group is the minority of the day? A fine ideal IMHO.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Actually, it most certainly was a bigoted opinion, even then, because it classed all indians as an object for automatic discrimination whether they were on one side or the other. Nope, it's bigotry if it is an arbitrary discrimination against a person for what group they are perceived to be, rather than for who they are as individuals. Absolutely false. They tried that in the South, and it was still bigotry.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

[/lurk]I really can't stand reading this stuff yet again and remaining silent.

quote:

---

Redskins, Yankees, Japs, Krouts, Hebes, Islamniacs, Wetbacks, and Queers”they're either bigoted for loving some or hating some, according to their POVs.

---

So in other words you use a definition of bigotry that is so nebulous and ill-defined that it describes everyone everywhere for practically every thought they've ever had concerning another person, ever. Your definition is completely and utterly useless.

quote:

---

If so, you should be ready to call people bigots for opposing polygamy, incest, pedophilia, bestiality, dog fighting, chicken sacrifices, and post-mortem wedlock.

---

Hoot... How many times does Straggler have to answer why those things should be outlawed? Really, he's done it at least half a dozen times now. All of those things you've named, except polygamy, inherently inflict harm upon and/or violate the rights of others. And he's gone to great lengths to explain why polygamy would be nearly impossible to regulate.

Hi,Actually, the US Government is not a pure Democracy and was never intended to be one -- Neither is the UK. The US is a Federal Democratic Republic of States operating on principles taken from various democratic philosophies. As Thomas Jefferson stated, "A true Democracy is to be feared and is the enemy of personal freedom." Essentially, in a pure and true Democracy, the 51% hold a tyranny over the 49% by way of a popular vote. Justice then becomes a popularity contest.Statesmen and Congressmen intentionally put articles into the Constitution that would make it as difficult as possible for one group to hold tyranny over the minority. Obviously, they realized a pure Democracy is essentially an oppressive dictatorship, with the ruling party being the simply majority that is able to rule over the 49% who are in opposition. After running from a monarchy, why create another one with the majority as King and ruler?This is the reason for the 2/3 vote, the veto power of the Presidency, the Electoral College, and the Congressional and Senatorial makeup. The intent is that in most cases, no single group, state, or interest should hold such power by way of numbers. Passing Constitutional amendments was also intentionally made to be difficult. It not only requires approval of Congress, but also each individual state -- all parties concerned have a say. Also, there is the rights of the States to pass their own legislation and form their own Constitution on the state and local levels.Obviously, resolving disputes and passing certain legislation by a simply majority vote is inevitable in many circumstances, but it is not the guiding principle of national politics and government. Nor should it be, IMHO. These simple majority votes are typically on state and city level initiatives where such a national process is impractical(or impossible).Is the system perfectly fair? Of course not. There never has been and never will be perfect governments. In pursuit of justice, Man has always sought ways to bring about a perfectly just society and a government that does not fall into error. Man has also discovered that such a perfect society and government will never exist and is a pipe dream. Many have written about such societies(Platos' Republic for example) but everyone will realize that such a perfect world is nothing but an abstract vision.The US Government has often been called a 'Great experiment in Democracy', a self-auditing process where the system can learn from it's mistakes and press forward by modifying existing laws and charters. It is a system that at times can lead to scenarios that need to be addressed, but it is still a relatively young system and is always changing.I do believe in this system, and without risking sounding like a blind nationalist or shallow flag-waver(I am neither), I take pride in our political system and am proud to be an American. As with any nation, there are often injustices, and I do recognize them; however, it is up to us, the citizens, to address the issues and correct them.The biggest fault I see with our system is the most glaring -- too many citizens seem to take the system for granted and expect the government to fix any and every issue, as if it is constantly on auto pilot. Ultimately, it is up to society to determine where we want to head.The process of change does not happen in a vacuum, and unfortunately, too many citizens opt-out of the process but will always complain when things are not to their liking. For the system to be as fair as possible, for the system to work as intended, it is essential that people participate in the political process the best way they can. Your opinion does matter. If all citizens were minimally involved at the local, state, and national affairs, things WOULD be much quicker to change.Also, If everyone voted, politicians would soil their pants

When the Vikings came to Lindisfarne, were they the bigots? Or we're the priests and nuns bigots for trying to repel them. My point, once again, is that the threshold of bigotry may appear on different landscapes for different reasons, or maybe on the same landscape but acting in different directions. There are no fixed standards that say, for example, opposition to" gay marriage" is a bigoted act. That only happens on the gays' landscape. As such, there is nothing but opinion to settle the matter, like whether or not iced tea is better than lemon aid.Let me try this:Billy has a bicycle with two wheels, which is the ordinary kind. Tommy comes by on his tricycle and tells Billy he has a three-wheeled bicycle. Billy says no he doesn't, because bicycles have only two wheels. Tommy argues back and says if he wants to call his three-wheeler a bicycle he is free to do that, and anybody who says he can't is a bigot.Tommy: "You're a big, fat bigot for saying I can't call my three-wheeler a bicycle. Besides, what harm does it do to anyone?"Billy: "You can call it a tricycle if you want to, because that's exactly what it is. But it ain't no bicycle, no matter how badly you want it to be."”HM

---

If you got some quince, Pussycat, I got a runcible spoon.

Hoot Mon writes:

quote:

---

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”?

---

Nonsensical question. Bigotry isn't about minority or majority opinions. It isn't about "correctness." Instead, bigotry is withholding from others that which you demand for yourself.In the case of your pharmacist, I would presume that he would demand that he be allowed access to the medications his doctor has prescribed for him without having a third party who has no standing stick his nose into the decision that he and his doctor made concerning his medical treatment.Because the pharmacist is denying to others that which he would demand for himself, that makes him a bigot.In the case of your lawyer, nothing changes with regard to those who currently can get married. Nothing is being taken away from them, nothing is being denied them. Therefore, since he is not denying to others that which he is demanding for himself, he is clearly not a bigot.Again, bigotry isn't about a "correct" opinion. If you think abortion is wrong, nobody is going to make you have one. If you think marrying someone of the same sex is a sin, then nobody will force you into one. But insisting that others not be allowed to do what you demand to do yourself is the essence of bigotry.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Hi RAZD. Were the G.I.s bigoted for slaughering the Japs on Okinawa? I'm sure racial hatred flow in both directions, which is my point: Bigotry is entirely relative to the circumstances, and it can only be decided subjectively. The threshold of bigotry is a floating craps game. So I'm back to my proposed rule #1 from Message 44: You can measure bigotry in the noise made by those who accuse others of it.”HM

---

If you got some quince, Pussycat, I got a runcible spoon.

I understand all that. But have you considered the possibility that, for example, the gay-marriage advocates are trying to make a bicycle out of a tricycle, per my one-act play in Message 132?”HM

---

If you got some quince, Pussycat, I got a runcible spoon.