On the Threshold of Bigotry

You'll accept that there is nothing irrational about the method whereby some one/group attempts to have their ideology exert influence: war and compromise-if-I-must are the actual tools used and, in the case where aspects of anothers ideology matter not a whit to you, laissez-faire.- Your own position gets agitated because the world doesn't work in the way you would like it to (ideologically). And you accept it never will. How rational to desire for a world that will never be? ever.As has been already pointed out, your own laissez-faire position is ideologically driven - it has the express aim of bringing about circumstances in which your own ideology remains free to express itself and survive. It's no more rational that a war approach though - just a means to an end. Indeed, laissez-faire is arguably less rational - given the success of the war approach in sustaining ideologies at No.1 positionOn compromise, would you consider compromising the central tenets of your own laissez-faire ideology?- What consitutes the boundaries of "adverse"? How is it measured? Without some objective judge (for there are no non-ideological judges) how can we progress? Practical / rational reasons for restricting the rights of cannibals. And whether or not you would society to adopt this particular flavour.Clearly, there is more to this than mere "so long as it doesn't affect me directly". Indirectly is a broader brushstroke - far more difficult to nail down in a sentence. As previously mentioned, ability to compromise is inversely proportional to the desire to have aspects of one's ideology hold sway. If you don't care all that much for aspects of your ideology then you'll compromise them away. If you care very much you won't.Fine sounding words Straggler, but that's all that lies at the root. See the response to your first bullet point. Expense is very much in the eye of the beholder. As mentioned, rational expression and utilisation of all the tools at one's disposal forms part of the game called "war". And all other ideologies are free to have a crack at the same whip. I just don't pretend that everyone else isn't attempting to do the same as me.The gay marriage lobby are certainly fighting on the beaches and in the air, in Ireland.

lyx2no responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

For the pharmacist to step in is to have him practice medicine without a license.

---

​

He's not stepping in, he's stepping out.

---

Let's not play dumb. Where else is a person supposed to get drugs except from a pharmacist? "Stepping out" means that even though the doctor and patient have agreed upon a course of treatment, the phrarmacist has decided that it will not go forward. Since this can be time-sensitive, treatment delayed means treatment denied.Congratulations, dear pharmacist, you've just killed the patient.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Why are you assuming that there's another one to go to?

---

​

Firstly, it's irrelevant.

---

Tell that to the dead patient. "We're very sorry, Family Member, but the pharmacist decided that his personal feelings were more important than the life of your relative, even though his job was to help people get the medications they need to live."

quote:

---

Secondly, I didn't assume, I counted them. I didn't count them all, of course. Once I got as high as two .

---

And where, precisely, do you live that you have two? How fortunate for you. And even if there is more than one, what happens when they all decide that they are more important than the people whom they are entrusted to serve? Exactly where is a person supposed to get the medications they need when the pharmacists decide they're not going to do their job?If a substitute can be found such that treatment is not delayed, then that's fine. But that makes it the pharmacist's responsibility to find the substitute, not the patient's. And if no substitute can be found, then it sucks to be the pharmacist, doesn't it? Part of serving the public trust is doing things you wouldn't personally wish to do but you must due to the fact that you are working for the public trust.When you're a public defender, you're the one who needs to defend people you know aren't the ones you really want loose. But because you decided to go into that position, because you took up a position to serve the public trust, not only must you defend them, you must do your best to give them the best defense possible. If you don't, you'll be brought up on charges and depending upon just how much of a failure you are, might possibly get disbarred.By your logic, a public defender should have the right to refuse defending people he doesn't like.

---

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.

Hoot Mon responds to me:

quote:

---

And that is why we need to get the law out of the business of marriage.

---

But you don't believe that. If you did, you wouldn't have been married three times. You wouldn't refer to them as "marriages." You wouldn't bring this up only when the question is about equality of rights.And most importantly, you wouldn't care what the name was. But you clearly do. As you said yourself, "I'll give you everything you want except the word." Ergo, you really do want the law in the business of marriage...specifically to deny it to gay people.And to deny to others that which you demand for yourself is the definition of bigotry.

quote:

---

But I do care what the laws do, since they affect me whether I like it or not.

---

For the umpteenth time, how does the neighbor's marriage affect you? Will you be required to give them an easement? Will you suddenly be forced to tear down the second story on your house? Will you be forced to walk your dog on the other side of the street?Be specific. How are you affected by the neighbor's marriage?

quote:

---

My apoplexy notwithstanding, it is you who is insisting that "gay marriage" is that same thing as marriage between a man and a woman.

---

"It is you who is insisting that 'interracial marriage' is the same thing as marriage between two whites."If it's a piece of crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to gay people?

quote:

---

Rrhain, unless you are illiterate and stupid, which you clearly are not, I am astonished that you can't recognize the difference.

---

I keep asking you to spell out the difference and so far, you haven't been able to come up with a single thing. What, specifically, is the difference?

quote:

---

I wonder if they know where the threshold of bigotry really is, since they are crossing it all the time by way of their accusations.

---

Since you are seeking to deny others that which you demand for yourself, what is it you are having trouble with?Be specific.

---

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.

Hoot Mon writes:

quote:

---

the laws already apply equally to straights and gays: both are permitted to enter heterosexual marriages

---

"But the laws already apply equally to blacks and whites: Both are permitted to enter into same-race marriages"If it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?Are you saying Loving v. Virginia was wrongly decided? I have asked you that question straight out numerous times and so far, you haven't answered.

quote:

---

What you and others are calling for is a change in the meaning of marriage

---

So Loving v. Virginia was wrongly decided. It "changed the meaning of marriage," and thus was wrong.If it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?

quote:

---

And for that I am called a bigot.

---

You wish to deny others that which you demand for yourself. That's the definition of bigotry. What's to be surprised about?

quote:

---

Therefore, the threshold is subjective and impossible to resolve without a popular consesus. No?

---

No. If you wish to deny others that which you demand for yourself, that's bigotry. "Popular consensus" doesn't enter into it.

---

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.

Hoot Mon responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Ah, yes...the silly claim that refusal to accept bigotry is bigotry.

​

And you wonder why you keep getting tagged as a bigot.

---

​

Rrhain, I do believe your have squared the circle.

---

(*chuckle*)See, in advanced mathematics, squaring the circle is easy because we learned that you don't have to use just a straightedge and compass.Please explain why it is that refusal to accept bigotry is bigotry. How is it that your ability to not marry someone of the same sex is hampered by letting the neighbors do so if they choose?How are you affected by the neighbor's marriage?Be specific.

---

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.

Hoot Mon writes:

quote:

---

I don't oppose legalizing DPs for gays. And whatever the insurance companies do is a private matter with their subscribers.

---

So you want a separate and unequal contract for gays, denying to them that which you demand for yourself.And you wonder why you keep getting tagged as a bigot.

---

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.

Nemesis Juggernaut writes:

quote:

---

Bigotry has an unmistakable negative connotation attached to it. And while we all feel justified in calling someone else a bigot, usually to denigrate them, the reality is we are all a little suspect.

---

So? Your argument seems to be that because all are found wanting, that makes it OK.To quote Breathed: Just because two million people do a dumb thing, it's still a dumb thing.

quote:

---

But, hey, maybe that's my own bigoted thinking manifesting itself.

---

You seek to deny others that which you demand for yourself. What part of that are you having trouble with?

quote:

---

Those of us who are bigoted towards rapists are quite happy being utterly intolerant to it -- I know I am.

---

Why? What part of "due process" are you having trouble with? I will remember this when you become subject to the power of the state that you are perfectly happy doing away with it.

---

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.

Nemesis Juggernaut writes:

quote:

---

It's like the term "homophobe." Not only does the word make no sense in conjunction with the prefix and the suffix

---

Ah, yes...the homophobe's complaint. Upon being caught in their bigotry, they complain about the term.What part of the portmanteau of "homosexual" and "phobia" are you having trouble with? "But I'm not scared of gays!" I hear you cry. And yet, clearly you are.A "phobia" is an irrational fear of something, usually because there is no actual threat. And yet, the behaviour of those that get termed "homophobes" clearly indicate that they are scared of something for which there is no threat. When asked to define just what it is that would change were gay people to be treated the same way as straight people, no answer is ever given.F'rinstance, I have asked you and Hoot Mon many times just what exactly will happen if gay people are allowed to get married and the only thing that has been mentioned is some harebrained scheme about Social Security as if straight people don't already do that and as if there were a significant number of gays to make a noticeable difference. In short, the only thing that was said was a claim that gay people are more likely to be criminals and scoundrels than straight people.And what is that if not an irrational fear of gay people.Ergo, "homophobia."

quote:

---

but it is also slung around rather carelessly by those who would slander someone who seems even slightly in opposition to their view.

---

Right...because the denial of fundamental rights to people who are gay is of no consequence. Pointing it out is "slander."Someone who is secure in his sexuality doesn't worry about the sex lives of other people because he knows it doesn't affect him. Why on earth get upset over something that he will never encounter?If you don't like having sex with someone of the same sex, then don't have any. Nobody is going to make you do so. So since there is no threat, why are you so agitated?

quote:

---

Does this help clarify at all?

---

Indeed. You want the right to be able to poke your nose into other people's lives, uninvited, and shout, "EWWW!" all the while expecting nobody to respond that nobody asked you for your opinion.Go ahead and have your opinion. Nobody cares what it is. Even let other people know what it is. Being rude is everybody's right.It becomes bigotry when you decide that other people don't get to do what you demand you be allowed to.

quote:

---

And their use of the word often indicates their own bias, their own prejudices, and their own... bigotry.

---

So refusing to accept bigotry is...bigotry?Right.

---

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.

Sucks even more to live in a small town, San Diego (say hi to my brother) for instance, where there is only one pharmacist. You realize, of course, that the Dr. could have supplied the RU 486, the medicine in question. Not that it's relevant, people aren't public utilities. Unless one hires oneself out as one. Your public defender is an example. It's his job to do his job as decided by his employer. "In the public trust" applies to government EMPLOYEES. Not to self-employed pharmacists. So, by my logic, no. Maybe the Dr. will prescribe moving to a town bigger then San Diego. Then the pharmacist will have to vend a lorry.Self-determination comes at the price of having to give it to others as well. Even pharmacists.

---

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

Hoot Mon writes:

quote:

---

As I have said before, over and over again, I'm willing to share the arbitrary legal advantages with everyone.

---

No, you're not. Married people get insurance benefits. Since you don't want to allow gay people to get married, then you don't want gay people to have that which you demand for yourself.The only way to guarantee equality under the law is to have a single contract for everyone. But you don't want that. You want to keep them separate. But by keeping them separate, you necessary make the legal statement that there is a difference between the two. If they were the same, there'd only be one contract. Because there is two, that necessarily means there is a distinction to be drawn. And if there is a distinction to be drawn, that necessarily means that there can be legal effects based upon that distinction.And that means the contracts are not equal no matter how many times people insist that they are. After all, every single time a state has come up with a "civil union" contract distinct from marriage, even though they were ordered to make it identical to marriage, it wound up being different: Rights and responsibilities that were granted to those under the contract of marriage did not wind up in the "civil union" contract.How many times do you need to be taught the "separate but equal" lesson before it sticks?

quote:

---

I'm willing to grant gays legal DP or civil-union status.

---

But that isn't the same thing as marriage. Therefore, you want to deny to gays that which you demand for yourself.And you wonder why you keep getting tagged as a bigot.

quote:

---

What I am such a dirty rotten bigot for is insisting that "marriage" is a civil union only between a man and a woman.

---

Because you want to deny to gays that which you demand for yourself.What part of that are you having trouble with?

quote:

---

Let the gays get their DPs and have all the legal frosting on their civil-union cake.

---

But a "domestic partnership" and a "civil union" do not carry the same legal standing as a "marriage," this necessarily means you wish to deny to gays that which you demand for yourself.And you wonder why you keep getting tagged as a bigot.

quote:

---

But I guess it is "bogus, blind and based on bigotry" to ask them to come up with their own term, like "garriage" or "fairriage" or something that fits their special situation.

---

What "special situation"? Be specific.You're the one having a conniption fit over the word. Therefore, since you're the one that wants to make a distinction between your relationship and those who are married, it is your responsibility to come up with a new term for your "special friendship."

quote:

---

That's all I have on my protest flag against "gay marriage," which still seems to me to be an oxymoron.

---

"That's all I have on my protest flag against 'interracial marriage,' which still seems to me to be an oxymoron."If it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly become legitimate when applied to sexual orientation?

---

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.

Hoot Mon writes:

quote:

---

And I'm rather proud to be bigoted against suicide bombers.

---

And look how well it turned out for us. Back in 1993 when we treated it as a law enforcement issue and made sure that the law was followed, we caught the perpetrators and locked them up where they can't do any more damage.When we decided to follow the bigotry of denying them the same due process we would demand for ourselves, we let them get away where they attacked other people.

---

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.

lyx2no responds to me:

quote:

---

Sucks even more to live in a small town, San Diego (say hi to my brother) for instance, where there is only one pharmacist.

---

(*chuckle*)What makes you think I have my pick of pharmacists? I have to drive out of my way to go to the pharmacy that will fill my prescriptions because the one that's nearby isn't on my insurance plan.

quote:

---

You realize, of course, that the Dr. could have supplied the RU 486, the medicine in question.

---

Really? There's a pharmacy in the office?

quote:

---

Not that it's relevant, people aren't public utilities.

---

I never said they were. I said the job was one to serve the public trust. People choose to take on the responsibilities of the job. That's why we have the phrase, "comes with the job."

quote:

---

Your public defender is an example. It's his job to do his job as decided by his employer.

---

And who is the employer? There are two entities involved, you know: There's the state who is the one who provides the lawyer in the first place. And then there's the client who will direct the lawyer. By taking a job as a public defender, you will be required to defend people you wouldn't normally choose. But it "comes with the job." You're there to serve the public trust.

quote:

---

"In the public trust" applies to government EMPLOYEES. Not to self-employed pharmacists.

---

So an EMT is...what, precisely? They're not employed by the government. So are you suggesting that an ambulance company has the right to deny treatment to people they are charged with helping?

quote:

---

Self-determination comes at the price of having to give it to others as well. Even pharmacists.

---

Indeed. If they self-determine to become a pharmacist, then they are required to engage in the activities that "come with the job."Query: Should a pharmacist be allowed to deny treatment based upon the race or sex of the person asking? If not, why are they allowed to deny treatment based upon the medication?Remember: A doctor can prescribe any medication for any reason. Why does the patient need to explain to the pharmacist why they are getting a prescription? The pharmacist's assumption of the use is just that: An assumption. Given HIPAA restrictions, where does the pharmacist get the notion that he has a right to know the diagnosis of the patient?

---

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.

Employee; their duty is to the employer who, generally, has a municipal contract. A private contractor has a duty to his contract (a description of his job). Our pharmacist is refusing a contract. There is no job description. If he feels it to be in his best interests not to contract with others based upon race he has that right. (Remember, this "has that right" is in the same vein as Gays having the right to marry. Just because it is currently denied does not mean the right doesn't exist.) And before you head off to the 14^th Amendment, the protection is "under the law". The Constitution was meant to restrict the government, not control private individuals.This is so going where I don't want it to go, so let me cut to the chase: When I was a child, my imaginary friend was Howard Roark. Now I hang with Hank and dagny. Who said the pharmacist had to know diddly?

---

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

Rrhain,You seem to think that a pharmacist is required to carry every drug that is available.That is not true.Salesmen come in and "sell" various drugs to the pharmacy, and the pharmacy decides which drugs it will buy and sell and which drugs it won't. They are not required to buy and sell every drug that the salesmen bring in.If they decide to not buy and sell a drug, that is up to the individual pharmacy. They don't have to buy and sell every drug that is on the market.What if the demand is too low? Or they don't have the money to stock up on a particular drug? What about the mom-n-pop pharmacies? You think that they have to provide every single drug on the market? There'd be no need for salesmen in the first place.How much experience do you actually have with pharmacists?

So "absolute" rights are "natural" rights as opposed to "legal" rights. I agree that "natural" rights do no exist and I think that "Legal" rights are granted (by legislation). I think that you'll find all kinds of laws that are not "objective" all over the place. That really hasn't ever been the way that laws get passed. Its pretty much a democracy.That isn't an argument for "why" laws should be that way, but it is a matter of fact that that is the way that laws are. But laws don't really have to be based on "rationality and reason", do they? I mean, what says that they do? I agree that it would be nice if they were, but where does it say that they are required to be? I think, that if some group of people in some county in some state wants to pass some irrational law, the they should be able to. Why can't there be an ideological allegiance? Seperation of church and state? That doesn't mean that people can't elect who they want to legislate the laws that they want be it for religious reasons or not. As long as the laws don't go against the Constitution, it doesn't matter if there is a rational argument for it or not.