| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/25/2008 06:00:24 PM · #1451 |
| Did anybody find it interesting that 22% of people who identified themselves as "liberal" voted FOR Prop 8? |
|
|
|
11/25/2008 06:05:30 PM · #1452 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Did anybody find it interesting that 22% of people who identified themselves as "liberal" voted FOR Prop 8? |
Did you find it interesting, Jason? |
|
|
|
11/25/2008 06:09:34 PM · #1453 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Did anybody find it interesting that 22% of people who identified themselves as "liberal" voted FOR Prop 8? |
Any more so than the 15% of conservatives or whopping 35% of catholics and protestants who voted against it? I mean if the objection isn't on religious grounds, then what other platform is there to stand on aside from blatant bigotry? |
|
|
|
11/25/2008 06:13:20 PM · #1454 |
| Another one bites the dust. |
|
|
|
11/25/2008 06:38:16 PM · #1455 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Did anybody find it interesting that 22% of people who identified themselves as "liberal" voted FOR Prop 8? |
Any more so than the 15% of conservatives or whopping 35% of catholics and protestants who voted against it? I mean if the objection isn't on religious grounds, then what other platform is there to stand on aside from blatant bigotry? |
Man, I want a dollar every time the word "bigotry" gets used in this thread. 50 cents extra this time because it was "blatant". Get over it Shannon. You are merely attempting to demonize your opposition. The issue is apparently so evenly split and so polarized that both sides could be considered "bigoted". The word is useless except as an epithet. |
|
|
|
11/25/2008 06:39:53 PM · #1456 |
Originally posted by sfalice:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Did anybody find it interesting that 22% of people who identified themselves as "liberal" voted FOR Prop 8? |
Did you find it interesting, Jason? |
I did. I would have guessed less. It seems people can't be as pigeonholed as we make them out to be. 1 in 5 is not a small number.
Message edited by author 2008-11-25 18:40:11. |
|
|
|
11/25/2008 06:54:31 PM · #1457 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Man, I want a dollar every time the word "bigotry" gets used in this thread. 50 cents extra this time because it was "blatant". Get over it Shannon. You are merely attempting to demonize your opposition. The issue is apparently so evenly split and so polarized that both sides could be considered "bigoted". The word is useless except as an epithet. |
No, Jason; "bigotry" is when you refuse to acknowledge the humanity or the legitimacy of an outlier group. It does NOT apply to both sides in the debate just because they are evenly split.
R.
|
|
|
|
11/25/2008 06:55:51 PM · #1458 |
I just spent some time wandering around in my own library.
Are we talking about the same word? This is the old-fashioned meaning of bigot Has it changed? (I donât want to even think about the copyright dates on these publications)
My (paper) dictionary (Websterâs Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary) defines bigot thusly:
âOne obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his own opinions an d prejudices.â
And then, I went to another (paper) dictionary â even older (the 2-volume New Century Dictionary) for another definition
âA person who is obstinately and unreasonably attached to a particular creed, doctrine opinion, etc., and intolerant of all others. bigoted Obstinately and blindly attached to a creed, opinion, etc.; unreasonably devoted to a particular system of belief, a party, etc. and intolerant toward all others. â
|
|
|
|
11/25/2008 06:59:25 PM · #1459 |
I prefer
Bigot: one who is obstinately and zealously attached to an opinion that you do not entertain.
But I tend to like a less standard dictionary
Message edited by author 2008-11-25 18:59:33. |
|
|
|
11/25/2008 07:09:49 PM · #1460 |
| It's hard on some people when their core views, including religious ones, are cloaked in bigotry. |
|
|
|
11/25/2008 07:19:48 PM · #1461 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Did anybody find it interesting that 22% of people who identified themselves as "liberal" voted FOR Prop 8? |
Any more so than the 15% of conservatives or whopping 35% of catholics and protestants who voted against it? I mean if the objection isn't on religious grounds, then what other platform is there to stand on aside from blatant bigotry? |
Man, I want a dollar every time the word "bigotry" gets used in this thread. 50 cents extra this time because it was "blatant". Get over it Shannon. You are merely attempting to demonize your opposition. The issue is apparently so evenly split and so polarized that both sides could be considered "bigoted". The word is useless except as an epithet. |
If you want to stick to the define bigot as someone zealously believes that two people who love each other should be allowed to marry then, that's fine because I'm OK with being so labeled since it means being inclusive, compassionate and has none of the negative baggage associated with the word.
Or, you could take your exclusionary, biased and hateful point of view, which carries all the negativity associated with the word bigot. Regardless of how you package it in terms of your personal beliefs, religion and morality, that's exactly what it is. You position deserves to be demonized, just like the positions taken by those who sought to justify racial discrimination deserve to be demonized or the views of groups like the Aryan Nation or the KKK today. |
|
|
|
11/25/2008 07:21:22 PM · #1462 |
I like Gordons definition. It's how it's used 99% of the time. So, just to be clear, when I argue about God with Shannon on other threads, is he bigoted because he os obstinately attached to the creed of atheism?
I disagree with Bear's use because he's added some nicely loaded words like "humanity" and "legitimacy".
Like I said, the word is useless except to demonize the opposition. Whatever original use, Gordon's definition is the way it's used now. |
|
|
|
11/25/2008 07:22:18 PM · #1463 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Or, you could take your exclusionary, biased and hateful point of view, which carries all the negativity associated with the word bigot. Regardless of how you package it in terms of your personal beliefs, religion and morality, that's exactly what it is. You position deserves to be demonized, just like the positions taken by those who sought to justify racial discrimination deserve to be demonized or the views of groups like the Aryan Nation or the KKK today. |
Oooh, Spaz came close to invoking Goodwin's Law.
I like how the "it's my way or the highway" attitude rises to the surface now and then from the angrier participants. I find it always helps calm one down to realize that in any argument there are bound to be people on the other side who are much smarter than you.
Message edited by author 2008-11-25 19:23:46. |
|
|
|
11/25/2008 07:26:29 PM · #1464 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Or, you could take your exclusionary, biased and hateful point of view, which carries all the negativity associated with the word bigot. Regardless of how you package it in terms of your personal beliefs, religion and morality, that's exactly what it is. You position deserves to be demonized, just like the positions taken by those who sought to justify racial discrimination deserve to be demonized or the views of groups like the Aryan Nation or the KKK today. |
Oooh, Spaz came close to invoking Goodwin's Law.
I like how the "it's my way or the highway" attitude rises to the surface now and then from the angrier participants. I find it always helps calm one down to realize that in any argument there are bound to be people on the other side who are much smarter than you. |
I'm sure there are biased people full of hate that believe in discrimination who are very smart. An intelligent mind doesn't make discrimination right. |
|
|
|
11/25/2008 07:36:06 PM · #1465 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I'm sure there are biased people full of hate that believe in discrimination who are very smart. An intelligent mind doesn't make discrimination right. |
An I'm sure an intelligent mind can find some common ground for both sides. Shall I write you off on that account? |
|
|
|
11/25/2008 07:46:29 PM · #1466 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I like Gordons definition. It's how it's used 99% of the time. So, just to be clear, when I argue about God with Shannon on other threads, is he bigoted because he os obstinately attached to the creed of atheism?
I disagree with Bear's use because he's added some nicely loaded words like "humanity" and "legitimacy".
Like I said, the word is useless except to demonize the opposition. Whatever original use, Gordon's definition is the way it's used now. |
forgive me if I appear to be mildly astonished by this statement, Jason. You would redefine a word that has an accepted meaning because you like how such a redefinition fits your argument? |
|
|
|
11/25/2008 07:48:33 PM · #1467 |
Sure, I'll say it. I'm bigoted against many people. I am bigoted against racists, pedophiles, and, well, actually a very long list of people. Just to be clear, by bigoted, I mean I am intolerant of those particular folks views and their existence in this society. Hope no one minds too much.
|
|
|
|
11/25/2008 07:52:32 PM · #1468 |
Originally posted by sfalice:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I like Gordons definition. It's how it's used 99% of the time. So, just to be clear, when I argue about God with Shannon on other threads, is he bigoted because he os obstinately attached to the creed of atheism?
I disagree with Bear's use because he's added some nicely loaded words like "humanity" and "legitimacy".
Like I said, the word is useless except to demonize the opposition. Whatever original use, Gordon's definition is the way it's used now. |
forgive me if I appear to be mildly astonished by this statement, Jason. You would redefine a word that has an accepted meaning because you like how such a redefinition fits your argument? |
Haha. Touche. :) I didn't say if I agreed with it. Actually it would be a useful word if it retained its original meaning. Now it's just a slur. It's like the word "gentleman". It's a word that had a meaning at one time, but now doesn't mean much at all because it's used all the time. I'll give Shannon a dollar if he can guess who this passage is from...
The word gentleman originally meant something recognisable; one who had
a coat of arms and some landed property. When you called someone "a
gentleman" you were not paying him a compliment, but merely stating a fact.
If you said he was not "a gentleman" you were not insulting him, but giving
information. There was no contradiction in saying that John was a liar and a
gentleman; any more than there now is in saying that James is a fool and an
M.A. But then there came people who said-so rightly, charitably,
spiritually, sensitively, so anything but usefully-"Ah, but surely the
important thing about a gentleman is not the coat of arms and the land, but
the behaviour? Surely he is the true gentleman who behaves as a gentleman
should? Surely in that sense Edward is far more truly a gentleman than
John?"
They meant well. To be honourable and courteous and brave is of course
a far better thing than to have a coat of arms. But it is not the same
thing. Worse still, it is not a thing everyone will agree about. To call a
man "a gentleman" in this new, refined sense, becomes, in fact, not a way of
giving information about him, but a way of praising him: to deny that he is
"a gentleman" becomes simply a way of insulting him. When a word ceases to
be a term of description and becomes merely a term of praise, it no longer
tells you facts about the object: it only tells you about the speaker's
attitude to that object. (A "nice" meal only means a meal the speaker
likes.)
A gentleman, once it has been spiritualised and refined out of its old
coarse, objective sense, means hardly more than a man whom the speaker
likes. As a result, gentleman is now a useless word. We had lots of terms of
approval already, so it was not needed for that use; on the other hand if
anyone (say, in a historical work) wants to use it in its old sense, he
cannot do so without explanations. It has been spoiled for that purpose.
In our case, "bigot no longer tells you facts about the object - it only tells you about the speaker's attitude to that object".
Message edited by author 2008-11-25 19:55:38. |
|
|
|
11/25/2008 08:04:59 PM · #1469 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So, just to be clear, when I argue about God with Shannon on other threads, is he bigoted because he os obstinately attached to the creed of atheism? |
Nope. The defining aspect of bigotry is the hateful intolerance. I have no animosity toward people who believe in whatever they like, and I would not begrudge them the right to those beliefs. HOWEVER, I also don't favor an amendment to redefine "truth" as something that's actually verifiable because it corrupts the word for the rest of us. Get it? Disagreeing with someone, no matter how obstinately, is not bigotry- it's a difference of opinion. It's only when you are so intolerant of another's views that you would forcefully impose your own lifestyle (hello, Prop 8) that you earn the term bigot.
PS- you obviously don't know what a creed is either. |
|
|
|
11/25/2008 08:08:35 PM · #1470 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
[quote=sfalice] [quote=DrAchoo]
It's like the word "gentleman". It's a word that had a meaning at one time, but now doesn't mean much at all because it's used all the time.
"
|
Jason, when my husband was commissioned in the United States Navy he was deemed an "officer and a gentleman." I am absolutely sure he would not agree with your words above.
Obviously, I do not agree the word has no use since it is "used all the time".
This is something of a red herring. Shall we get back to the topic at hand?
Message edited by author 2008-11-25 20:11:14. |
|
|
|
11/25/2008 08:09:45 PM · #1471 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
PS- you obviously don't know what a creed is either. |
"A system of belief, principles, or opinions:" That's definition #2. #1 had "religious" in it, but I was using the more general sense. nyah. |
|
|
|
11/25/2008 08:10:48 PM · #1472 |
Originally posted by sfalice:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
[quote=sfalice] [quote=DrAchoo]
It's like the word "gentleman". It's a word that had a meaning at one time, but now doesn't mean much at all because it's used all the time.
John?"
|
Jason, when my husband was commissioned in the United States Navy he was deemed an "officer and a gentleman." I am absolutely sure he would not agree with your words above.
|
He was deemed to have a coat of arms and a landowner? :) Sweet. |
|
|
|
11/25/2008 08:12:29 PM · #1473 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Did anybody find it interesting that 22% of people who identified themselves as "liberal" voted FOR Prop 8? |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Any more so than the 15% of conservatives or whopping 35% of catholics and protestants who voted against it? I mean if the objection isn't on religious grounds, then what other platform is there to stand on aside from blatant bigotry? |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Man, I want a dollar every time the word "bigotry" gets used in this thread. 50 cents extra this time because it was "blatant". Get over it Shannon. You are merely attempting to demonize your opposition. The issue is apparently so evenly split and so polarized that both sides could be considered "bigoted". The word is useless except as an epithet. |
I gotta tell ya, man, this obfuscation and semantics crap is starting to get old.
At this point, you have been involved on a pretty personal level with a bunch of people here who have presented all kinds of evidence, culture, thoughts, feelings; they've shared laughs, commiserated, poked fun, gotten angry, and just in general spent a lot of time together trying to offer up their views on many different sides of the issue, and we've all gotten to know one another a lot better.
Mousie has been really brave, and has opened his heart, mind, and life for our inspection quite freely, and there have been many of us who have bared our souls to one another.
I want a straight, no bullshit answer out of you.
Do you think on any level, really and truly, that Mousie is entitled to any less rights than you or I?
|
|
|
|
11/25/2008 08:13:57 PM · #1474 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by sfalice:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
[quote=sfalice] [quote=DrAchoo]
It's like the word "gentleman". It's a word that had a meaning at one time, but now doesn't mean much at all because it's used all the time.
John?"
|
Jason, when my husband was commissioned in the United States Navy he was deemed an "officer and a gentleman." I am absolutely sure he would not agree with your words above.
|
He was deemed to have a coat of arms and a landowner? :) Sweet. |
(sigh) am I going to have to go back to my big dictionaries and bring your definitions up to date?
No, the post was a red herring and I'm going to let it drop.
:-(( |
|
|
|
11/25/2008 08:16:52 PM · #1475 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Do you think on any level, really and truly, that Mousie is entitled to any less rights than you or I? |
Straight up. He is entitled to every right listed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Not so straight up, they don't define "marriage" (see article 16) so I'm gonna go with the current federal definition. Mousie has every right to marry any woman of his choice. |
|
