On the Threshold of Bigotry

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?

Oh for fuck's sake.... Fine then:Why should we NOT use the dictionary's definition? Bigotry:

quote:

---

1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
2. the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.

---

Intolerance:

quote:

---

1. lack of toleration; unwillingness or refusal to tolerate or respect contrary opinions or beliefs, persons of different races or backgrounds, etc.
2. incapacity or indisposition to bear or endure: intolerance to heat.
3. abnormal sensitivity or allergy to a food, drug, etc.
4. an intolerant act.

---

So... simply being disrespectful to a contrary opinion is a form of bigotry.And actually, that's what I think the threshold of bigotry is.... RESPECT. No, but a disrespectful disagreement does. What makes you a bigot is how disrespectful you are towards those whose opinions differ from your's. Not even close.... This is closer to my point. You see, I think that by marriage being between one man and one woman, gays don't have a right to marriage in the first place. I don't consider myself a bigot for making arguments that a right does not exist. Even according to your made up, I mean "explained", definition, I wouldn't be a bigot because I'm not denying them a right that they have. Its the same as me arguing that you don't have a right to give birth.Of course, there's more to my argument than the definition of the word, but its not for this thread.Now, even if I am wrong, and we find out that gays had a right to marriage all along, I wouldn't be be a bigot according to your definition because I haven't ACTED in any way to deny them their right. I made arguments that the right didn't exist in the first place. I think we're all bigots, even you. The only person who is not a bigot is the one who is completely tolerant and respectful of everyone else's opinions. Since everyone is not at some time, we all have some amount of bigotry in us.I don't think the question of bigotry is a yes/no question. I think that its a more of a continuum of who is more bigoted and who is less. People who are respectful of other poeple's opinions are less bigoted than those who go around calling each other "fucking homophobic bigots".But honestly, I know that I can be bigoted. And I'm not ashamed of it.

Apparently you missed the dictionary definition of tolerance in the post you replied too.... Here it is again: Intolerance:

quote:

---

1. lack of toleration; unwillingness or refusal to tolerate or respect contrary opinions or beliefs, persons of different races or backgrounds, etc.
2. incapacity or indisposition to bear or endure: intolerance to heat.
3. abnormal sensitivity or allergy to a food, drug, etc.
4. an intolerant act.

---

No, you are intolerant of my opinion, according to the dictionary's definition, because of your vehement disrespect towards my opinion. You are unwilling to respect my opinion. How is that not intolerance according to the definition above? Hrm.... so then, I would be a bigot for argueing that you don't have the right to give birth? Wait, you said the opposite in Message 102:

quote:

---

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.

---

You go on to say:

quote:

---

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?

---

All that is off topic here and I've already been in, like, three threads explaining all of this. Its very simple, flies. Them lacking the right to marriage doesn't mean that I cannot be okay with them getting married. I can be okay with people doing things that they do not have a right to do. Its not the simple disagreeing that makes you a bigot, its the disrespect.From Message 106I even wrote it in all caps for you If we follow your logic, then racism, in and of itself, is not a form of bigotry. Honestly, yes. The more respectful you are the less of a bigot I'll think of you. Well, you were wrong about the definition being meaningless, but yeah, like I said before, bigotry is not black and white. We are all somewhat bigoted towards somethings, and some of us are more bigoted than others. You more than me, for example.

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.

By suggesting that a pharmacist is "stepping in between" the patient and the doctor. If the pharmacy simply does not buy and sell a particular drug, that is up to them. By suggesting that the pharmacist must provide a paticular drug, you are saying that they must buy and sell that drug. If they don't want to, then they don't have to. If nobody is going to buy it in their region, then they are not obligated to buy and sell it.They do not have to buy and sell any drug that they don't want too. Why? They can simply not carry the drug, then they don't have to dispense it. You always accuse of "playing dumb" when your refuted. What about deeply religous regions where most people wouldn't take the drug. The pharmacy is not required to stock drugs if they don't want to, whether or not it will sell or not. Its up to the pharmacy what drugs they sell and don't.The demand for the drug decides whether or not the pharmacy would benefit from carrying it or not. If they don't want to dispense it then they don't have to carry it. Enough to realize that saying that a pharmacist must provide a drug is wrong.Now, if a pharmacist works for, say Walgreens, that stocks a drug that they don't want to dispence, and Walgreens employee policy states that the pharmacist must provide every drug on the shelf, then they'd be violating their employment policy.But if they own their own pharmacy and simply decide to not carry a particular drug, they are not obligated to carry it. They don't have to buy and sell every drug that exists.

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. 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: 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:

---

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.

---

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:

---

But not as a medical practitioner. The course of treatment was decided by the doctor in concert with the patient. For the pharmacist to step in is to have him practice medicine without a license. When he became a licensed pharmacist, he took an oath to behave in a certain way. If he cannot live up to that requirement, then he needs to find another line of work.

---

You're wrong here too. The phamacy is not "practicing medice" by deciding which drugs they carry.

---

Actually, the OP explicitly talks of carrying it rather than dispensing it. Well, I did read the OP. Right. The pharmacy shouldn't be forced to carry/dispense the drug. 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?

In the United States, the laws that specifically mention marriage were written with the presumption that marriage is between one man and one woman. They were not, however, written with the presumption that marriage is between people of the same race.

No they weren't. Loving v Virginia overturned the RIA. Before 1924, the laws that mentioned marriage did not have the presumption that marriage was between the same races. The RIA added that, wrongfully, later. However, when marriage laws were written, it was presumed that marriage was between the same sexes. DOMA correctly defines marriage in that regard, however the RIA was incorrect and was rightly overturned.

It seems there's a little bit more to it than that...I haven't done anything at all to get in the way of gay marriage, but its advocates have still identified me as a "fucking homophobic bigot". Sure, I don't think that marriage's definition includes same sex ones and I'll argue against opposing opinion. But simply not supporting gay marriage, while still not getting in the way, is also on the must hate list.I think that, itself, is another form of bigotry.

Are you a fucking moron or do you do this on purpose? I really can't tell.The specifics of your request immediatly follow the line you quoted. Your boy-boy/girl-girl bullshit has absolutely nothing to do with the "little bit more" that I was referring to. You can tell by the context of the quote I was replying to, what I was referring to. Its called reading. Right, I did not. In fact, I said multiple times that I really didn't care if they do get married. Not true, not the first time at least. You just label opposing opinion as intolerance so you get your free pass to be as bigoted as you want. Not according to the definition of bigotry that is found in dictionaries. I don't subscribe to the definitions that you personaly make up.Rrhain, you have to be the most annoying and dumbest asshole I have forumed with. You cannot even read, it seems. You'd reather project what you think I should be saying into my posts than actualy try to understand what I am saying. You are a troll of the highestorder.And for that I will continue to ignore you.Now, go and cry to the admins.

---

I don't want un-equality for gay people. I just don't care. So like I said:

quote:

---

I haven't done anything at all to get in the way of gay marriage, but its advocates have still identified me as a "fucking homophobic bigot". Sure, I don't think that marriage's definition includes same sex ones and I'll argue against opposing opinion. But simply not supporting gay marriage, while still not getting in the way, is also on the must hate list.

​

I think that, itself, is another form of bigotry.

---

Fucking troll. That is so untrue. You certainly do try to make my argument for me, well, whatever it is you're "pretty sure" my argument is. The thing is, you're usually wrong about what I'm trying to argue. That makes you out to seem really disingenuous.And since you're doing it on purpose, I'll keep you on my blacklist. The claim was that the only thing the gay marriage advocates want is for people to stay out of the way. I said there was a little bit more to it than that. There's more to it than wanting people to stay out of the way. Not that there was more to the contract of marriage. Exactly. Let "that" = "not supporting gay marriage and arguing against it"Gay marriage advocates expect people to conform to their opinion and vehemently oppose those who do not. They are the one who are saying "and thus you shouldn't like that either". So therefore, they are bigots as well.

You're gonna get me suspended.

By bringing more attention to where I've broken the rules.Sometimes the moderators will browse threads and suspend people even when no complaints have been made.

Well, the topic is bigotry and when something becomes bigotry.Now, I haven't really seen the above arguments but in past gay marriage threads I have made similiar ones.I was arguing that the idea that the gay marriage is a fundamental right and the Constitutiotn demands it was flawed. I wasn't even arguing that gays shouldn't be allowed to be allowed to be marrid but that simply the way they are going about legalizing it was incorrect.The gay marriage advocates villified me for arguing this. They pushed me into the position of being intolerant and a bigot because I wasn't supporting gay marriage.I think this is just another form of bigotry itself.Because I didn't comform to what they think things should be like, they vehemently opposed me.The pot was calling the kettle black.