On the Threshold of Bigotry

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) • • •

No, they were fighting a war against the Japanese on that island, one where Japan had decided to make a stand, and war seems to necessarily involve killing people (I've not heard of a war fought that doesn't).They were bigoted when they categorically called them "Nips" or "Slants" in a derogatory way, and they were bigoted when they mistreated other Japanese that were NOT fighting the war.The US interred japanese americans during the war as a precaution against subversive wartime spying. They also used popular bigotry to confiscate all their property in the process, whether they were guilty of espionage or not, and they also exercised bigoty when they kept them impounded without any trial or investigation to see if they were in fact involved in espionage, rather than just act on the assumption that because they were japanese that they would. No, it's about fairness in treatment of groups of people. Why should a member of group A be treated differently from a member of group B solely on the basis of group membership?Rrhain has a good point: when you treat someone else in a manner you do not want to be treated yourself, this is unfair and when you do it solely because they are a member of group A, it is bigotry. Thus the "golden rule" applied to groups can be used as your "threshold" definition.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : englissssssssss

---

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) • • •

This argument is still just as bogus, blind and based on bigotry as it was the first time I heard it.Person {Z} is permitted to marry people from one group but not to marry people from another group ... so how is this not discrimination based on bigotry?By contrast you can live with any consenting adult of your choice with no legal restrictions, so that is not the issue. Likewise you can have sex with any consenting adult of your choice with no legal restrictions, so that is not the issue. You can also raise children as a single parent with no legal restrictions, so that is not the issue.The issue is that some arrangements confer an arbitrary legal advantage over others - how are these arbitrary legal advantages not discrimination when they don't apply to everyone equally? It's restricting privileges from some people that others are allowed to enjoy.Personally I think that all laws that give any kind of advantage to married people should be declared null and void, as they discriminate against single people, people who are just as likely to be peaceful citizens minding their own business and not harming any other citizens as anyone else.Can you marry yourself to get those privileges? Another bogus argument, they were treated as criminals because they - individually - actually were criminals. There were not "wanted" posters for all people named Bonnie or Clyde. No, what you are against is sharing the arbitrary legal advantages that you enjoy with everyone, and for that you are behaving like a bigot.It's like the southerner proudly proclaiming that he is not biased, he "loves black people, loves them to death, he just doesn't want them living in his neighborhood." People are blind to their own bigotry - because if they weren't they would know that it was wrong. No, it is pretty easy to determine that you want to exclude people from your group, it's pretty easy to determine that people who want to treat one group differently from another group are practicing bigotry. There is nothing subjective about drawing lines between people.If you had two new neighbors, and you could not tell which sex either one was, how would you - personally - know whether they could or could not get married? What criteria would you use?If you had two new neighbors, and both appear to be the same sex, but one was secretly a transvestite, how would you - personally - know whether they could or could not get married? What criteria would you use?A man and a woman that never have sex can get married, so it has nothing to do with sex, yet a man and a man that never have sex can't get married - why is that?There are also people that get married purely for the legal advantages, with no intention of doing anything more. Doesn't this tell you that what is "at stake" is not some mythical magical morality, but discrimination and bigotry based on class?Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : finEdited by RAZD, : added

---

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) • • •

What you want, when we clear away all the shinola, bruhaha and bogus arguments is to be able, at the end of the day, to say to gays "I'm married and you're not" = "I'm special and you're not" ...Curious that you didn't address the two hypothetical cases eh? Hard to be intolerant when you can't tell who is who.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) • • •

What we can do, based on extensive testing, is assume that between any two individual, one will likely have better aptitude and a certain task,What we cannot do is assume that they will always have a better aptitude on all tasks.What we cannot do is assume that the superior aptitude at any single task can be predicted based on non-related phenomena.A choice between individuals based on a true tested difference in aptitude is not bigotry, but an assumed difference based on non-related phenomena (and that is not verified) is.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) • • •