|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5529 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: On the Threshold of Bigotry | |||||||||||||||||||||||
FliesOnly Member (Idle past 4174 days) Posts: 797 From: Michigan Joined: |
Nemesis Juggernaut writes: Bullshit, NJ. Don't you sit there and call me a liar...that somehow you know that I really don't believe what I just wrote. You find one place in anything I've said that would imply differently. Show me one place where I've said something that would give to impression that I feel the first guy is a bigot. Show me, N.J. Provide a link to a posting where I've written something that would now make me out to be a liar. Show me these ad hoc qualifiers that have backed me into this corner where I must now lie to save face. You know you don't believe that in your heart of hearts, Flies. Give me a break. You are only saying that to save face since you've backed yourself in to a corner through a series of ad hoc qualifiers. I don't believe it for a second. The first guy is NOT a bigot, and I have never implied differently...I have been completely consistent with my attempt to explain to you what the word bigot means. It's what I have been arguing since this whole thing started probably over a 1000 posts ago. The fact that you don't now believe me only strengthens my viewpoint that you are indeed a homophobic bigot that has no clue what the word means.
Nemesis Juggernaut writes: Did you read the part where I stated that I would first explain to him WHY separate but equal doesn't work in this Country? He certainly shows the potential for intolerance though, wouldn't you agree. Where as the first guy...well...he may hate gays but at least he is not doing anything intolerant towards them. Golly, which one of the two seems the most likely to become a bigot to you N.J.?
Did you see utter intolerance in the second man? Certainly not. He is just being honest. Nemesis Juggernaut writes: What's with this "utter intolerance" now? I love you guys. Every time you come to the realization that you're a bigot, you get out of it by adding new words and meanings to the definition. Riding the fence about a subject would not in any way insinuate utter intolerance. I yet you claim that I am the one making up the definition. What a crock.
Nemesis Juggernaut writes: As I said in my previous post (did you bother to read it at all?), I would not consider him a bigot until such time that after having it explained to him WHY homosexuals should not be denied the right to marry the person of their choice, he still wanted to deny them this right. He's not a bigot until he tries to deny to others that which he himself is afforded.
If anything, it is the exact opposite. It is evidence of an openness and a willingness to hear both arguments. He wants the truth about it, whatever it may be. He has no allegiances in either direction, so, no, he is most certainly would not be a bigot. Nemesis Juggernaut writes: And here we see more of this crapolla again. Show me where I made up a definition, NJ. I am using the same definition that you are. The difference is, is that I know the meanings of the words.
And to add, it isn't my definition, it is the English language's definition. My personal beliefs on the word bear no reflection on that. Consequently for you, you made up your own definition. That's not how it works. Nemesis Juggernaut writes: If your beliefs deny to others that which you yourself are afforded, then you are a bigot. I'm not the one that thinks everyone is a bigot towards everyone else. I'm the one that is applying the definition of bigotry as it is defined. No, Flies, for the simple fact that most people don't have an utter intolerance to things. Yes, we all have our beliefs. Of the firm ones, sure we all are biased towards them. That doesn't mean that every single one of our beliefs are staunch, nor does it mean that we are incapable of believing otherwise through sound argument. Therefore, no, we are not all bigoted in every respect. Here's something to try. If you believe (as I think you do) that homosexuals should not be allowed to marry the person of their choice, then explain to me how this does not fit the definition of bigotry. Are you not being intolerant towards homosexuals? If not, please explain how this is not showing an intolerance.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4745 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
Huh? How on earth is the justification for business regulation related to marriage rights? They are related In that both are currently the law. If one is going to apply the standard "the law say" then that ends both conversations.
If I didn't know better, I'd say you were wandering off into libertarian land. Libertarians are pikers.
So when you are robbed, it is wrong to force the person who robbed you to return what was stolen or pay restitution or be imprisoned. That would be "violating their right to self-determination," right. Don't play dumb, we have been discussing government intervention into the peaceful pursuits of our fellow man.
"You" generically, not specifically. The generic "you" is spelled differently. One leaves off the "y" and the "u" and adds an "ne". When I was seven or eight I read London's Martin Eden. The pre-literate Martin, while talking to Ruth (Morse), comments (paraphrase), "You know how it is when you drink too much." Whereupon, Ruth corrects his second use of "you" because it implies direct experience. I've been a prick about it ever since.
A restaurant is justified in refusing you a table based on your sex? I couldn't say that "justified" is the right word. I think it foolish socially and economically, but I think so long as I am not the owner of that restaurant then it's not my call. I'll not be eating there either, which is my right ” and, frankly, duty.
Well, then there's nothing left to talk about. We have such profound differences of opinion regarding the obligations of society and the ethics that go with being in society that I doubt there is any common ground. I would hope that our common ground was that neither of us wants a government that enforces the social will upon the individual without considering whether there is a less coercive way of doing so then violating property rights, rights to association, rights to self- determination, right to free expression, rights to . Other then that ” we're cool. Kindly Everyone deserves a neatly dug grave. It is the timing that's in dispute. ‘—
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4745 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
. but I would have preferred to be a lesbian over the other kind. That would explain why you continuously miss the meat and potatoes of an argument and go right for the cordial. Kindly Everyone deserves a neatly dug grave. It is the timing that's in dispute. ‘—
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
Hoot Mon writes: So, how do you solve the problem and dispel all the bigotry? By getting the government out of the business of marriage. The government's business is about civil unions; the churches' business is about marriages. That's where the rub is. No. This is prioritizing the definition of terms above the equal rights. The way to fix it is to fight for equal rights first, then go ahead and squabble over what you'd like to call it. That removes all the bigotry, and fixes the issue. No rub.
Hoot Mon writes: Thus, to solve the matter fairly, I side with those who say let the government do its business and let the churches theirs. And all those who are bothered by the government marrying homosexuals will no longer have a case against it; they'll have to storm the churches, and I won't have to care twit about it. Which is to say... you'd rather squabble over the definition of terms first, and let that sort out who gets what rights instead of fighting for equal rights first and then sorting out the definition of terms. Yes, this certainly is an easy way to make it look like you care. However, the right thing to do is to prioritize equal rights over the definition of terms. You should fight for equal rights before squabbling over the definition of terms. With full knowledge that prioritizing the definition of terms over equal rights makes one a bigot, you have gone ahead and stated that you'd rather prioritize the definition of terms over equal rights. Whenever you'd like to change your mind and feed the starving man before you decide what to call your tomato, let me know.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5529 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Rrhain writes:
I'm not coming anywhere near you, Rrhain. I don't know which would be worse: you actually performing a circumcision on me, or you just fumbling around with my unit before hand.
Are you saying you agree that I should be allowed to perform surgery on you without your consent? Why don't you come here and let me exercise my rights, then. No, it isn't. Male genital mutilation is just as reprehensible as female genital mutilation and it is bigotry to say that she has a right to her sexual organs while he does not have a right to his
Thank you for confirming that you believe neither sex should be circumcised. That's consistent with your POV. Now, what to do about male circumcision? I'm definitely glad they circumcised me, even if they didn't ask me first. I'm sorry they didn't get to you. Don't your lovers complain about the additional health hazard of an unsanitary foreskin? Any Jewish lovers in your date book? ”HM If you got some quince, Pussycat, I got a runcible spoon.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5529 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Rrhain writes:
Because race and sexual orientation are as different as Mars and a tomato. You forgot to include these inequalities, too: children and sexual orientation, multiple spouses and sexual orientation, and other species and sexual orientation.
"I'm saying that changing the legal definition of 'marriage' for the convenience of a minority group of races is subjective." If it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation? You keep saying that marriage is only between a man and a woman, but you keep on forgetting to explain why.
True, I have not explained it well enough to convince you. But do I also need to explain why men shouldn't use the lady's room? Do I need to explain why a man shouldn't be allowed to marry his daughter or his dog? Do I need to explain why public nudity is immoral? (Nudists feel the heat of such bigotry all the time.)
It isn't a question of "differing POVs." It's that you want to deny others that which you demand for yourself.
True again. I demand urinals in all mens' public restrooms, and I don't need no stinkin' women squatting over them, either. Boy, am I bigot for my bigoted POV!
And if someone was simply disagreeing with your opinion, then you might have a point. Instead, all responses have been regarding the effect you are trying to achieve: The denial to gays of that which you demand for yourself.
Oh, Rrhain, you just can't seem to get on board this logical bus. The truth is that I desire for gays exactly what I desire for myself: a heterosexual marriage and a semi-annual visit to the tooth dentist. ”HM If you got some quince, Pussycat, I got a runcible spoon.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3941 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
Don't your lovers complain about the additional health hazard of an unsanitary foreskin? Off topic, but that is a giant myth. Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5529 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Stile writes:
OK, let's feed the starving man a tomato. But let's not tell him first what it is; let's just say it's good for him and that he doesn't need to know what it is. "Just shut up, starving man, and eat what I'm feeding you!" But don't starving men have equal rights, too? Isn't there something called the "Freedom of Information Act"? Would you deprive a starving man of all of his legal rights just because he's starving? Whenever you'd like to change your mind and feed the starving man before you decide what to call your tomato, let me know. ”HM If you got some quince, Pussycat, I got a runcible spoon.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5529 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Jazzns writes:
Jazzns, you're right about being OT, but wrong about being a myth. From Cervical Cancer in Female Partners of Uncircumcised Men:
HM writes:
Off topic, but that is a giant myth. Don't your lovers complain about the additional health hazard of an unsanitary foreskin?quote: ”HM If you got some quince, Pussycat, I got a runcible spoon.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
Hoot Mon writes: OK, let's feed the starving man a tomato. But let's not tell him first what it is; let's just say it's good for him and that he doesn't need to know what it is. "Just shut up, starving man, and eat what I'm feeding you!" But don't starving men have equal rights, too? Isn't there something called the "Freedom of Information Act"? Would you deprive a starving man of all of his legal rights just because he's starving? You're going to have to attempt explaining this again. I can't make any sense out of it. What legal right, especially anything in the Freedom of Information Act, would anyone be breaching if they gave food to a starving man? Do you understand the analogy? Here it is again:
Stile in Message 210 writes: When you prioritize the simple definitions of words over the equal rights of fellow humans... you then become a bigot. You are now 'intolerant' of those fellow humans having equal rights. No one cares about the definition of the word marriage, the problem is prioritizing the definition of a word over allowing equal rights for fellow human beings. It is akin to arguing the use of 'toMEHto' vs 'toMAHto' while holding the tomato in your hand and not allowing a starving fellow human to eat it until you get your vocabulary straight. It's ridiculous. It has nothing to do with 'witholding information' or anything like that. Feel free to squabble over definitions and terms all you'd like... after the rights/freedoms have been made equal. Anything less is nothing more then a delay tactic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
quote:quote: And what part of "I'm not going to fill this prescription for you" is suggestive of not having the drug to dispense?
You totally missed my point. The pharmacist doesn't have to go so far as to step in between the patient and the doctor by refusing to fill a particular prescription if they decide to simply not have that particular drug on their shelves.
We're not talking about carrying it. We're talking about dispensing it. I guess that is all fine and dandy, but my point is tangential. And you have to carry it to dispense it. Besides, look at the OP... From Message 1:
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 I agree with you that if the drug is sitting there and the pharmacist just doesn't want to fill it, then that is wrong. But phamracies can decide which drugs they carry and which ones they don't. Its not bigotry to not carry a drug. From Message 133:
quote: If the pharmacist decides to not carry a drug at all then they are not acting as a third party by sticking his nose into the decision that another and their doctor made. From Message 146:
quote: You're wrong here too. The phamacy is not "practicing medice" by deciding which drugs they carry. I asked you nicely not to play dumb. We're not talking about carrying it. We're talking about dispensing it. Actually, the OP explicitly talks of carrying it rather than dispensing it.
So said the person who doesn't read posts. Well, I did read the OP.
Or is there no such thing as ethics? I must agree with Miss Manners that it is sad that we have to resort to the law in order to enforce what is really a matter of etiquette. Right. The pharmacy shouldn't be forced to carry/dispense the drug.
If you are uncomfortable with the uses of certain drugs for certain treatments, then the position of pharmacist is not for you. New drugs come out all the time. People have been pharmacists for a long time. If a new drug comes out that mkes them uncomfortable, then they don't have to buy it and they don't have to sell it. That doesn't mean that the position of phamacist is not for them. What if you were a pharmacist for 20 years and then they came out with a pill that "cures" homosexuality, and you disagreed with the medication?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5529 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Stile writes:
But maybe he's allergic to tomatoes. He could sue you over that. What legal right, especially anything in the Freedom of Information Act, would anyone be breaching if they gave food to a starving man? ”HM If you got some quince, Pussycat, I got a runcible spoon.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5529 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
lyx2no writes:
Are you a hot lesbian, 2no? NTTIAWWT. And is it bigoted for me to ask? HM writes: That would explain why you continuously miss the meat and potatoes of an argument and go right for the cordial. . but I would have preferred to be a lesbian over the other kind. ”HM If you got some quince, Pussycat, I got a runcible spoon.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4745 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
And is it bigoted for me to ask? I would have to know your motives to judge whether it was or was not bigoted. I do not, however, need to know your motives to know it is rude, stupid and, if I were, insulting. You need a time out, dude.
BTW: Where I come from, calling someone a dude can get you shot, dude. The implication of this is that you have been insulted ” possibly in return. Suck it up, dude. Kindly Everyone deserves a neatly dug grave. It is the timing that's in dispute. ‘—
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Hoot Mon responds to me:
quote: And you wonder why the term is homophobia. You will note that I said nothing about sexual activity and yet you jumped there immediately, so scared of what you might do. I'm not going to have sex with you, Hoot Mon, so stop asking me.
quote: You leave it up to the person the foreskin is attached to.
quote: You act as if you've seen my penis. Look, I'm not going to have sex with you. Please stop asking. 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024