The 800 Pound Gorilla In Cleveland

[Tennesseer]

May 10, 2013 10:06:46 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

May 9, 2013 20:35:33 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

The manhunt in Boston and Cambridge was a millionfold overreaction. Don't hold that up as a baseline "reasonable response" to anything.

I have to agree with everyone else here though in wondering what legal immigration status has to do with anything. The media could just as easily determine whether Mr. Castro owned a gun and then speculate that his captives would've escaped "if not for the gun".

If even a hint of that spin would bring about a well-deserved remote thrown at the TV, why should we be any more sympathetic to an anti-immigrant spin?

Illegal aliens account for between 17% and 29% of the prison population in the United States depending on the state- California, not surprisingly, spends $1 billion (with a "B") housing illegal alien criminals in prisons.  It is not unreasonable to ask, when you hear about a high-profile story involving crime(s) committed by a person with a Hispanic last name, "Hey, I wonder if this animal is even here legally?".  I think given the numbers- of course, I'm actually familiar with the numbers- it'd be foolish for a nation being put through what we were just put through by foreign invaders, fraudulent citizens, traitors, and/or illegal combatants- whatever you want to call them in Boston NOT to ask the question.  

If you want to be an ostrich and say legal immigration status isn't something we're having problems with, and need to get a handle on- so when you hear about a crime committed by someone named after an islamic conqueror from the crusades, or someone with a Hispanic-sounding name to be curious is natural for the informed, thinking person.

Wouldn't an "informed, thinking person" do their own research before asking the following question?

"I haven't heard a single media outlet, commentator, pundit, et al ask the question: Is the Castro family here legally? Born and raised? Legal immigrants? What is their history, and what's their status?"

Most of us informed, thinking people already knew this guy was Puerto Rican and a citizen of the United States.

[Deleted]

Perhaps Paul, but an informed, thinking person should also be mindful of the difference between

Most X are Y

and

Most Y are X


Most illegal immigrants in the U.S. are Hispanic.
But most Hispanics are not illegal immigrants.

Most terrorist attacks against the U.S. are perpetrated by Muslims.
But most Muslims are not terrorists.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

TN- it wasn't widely asked, though I'm sure I'm not alone in wondering about it. I did finally dig it up thanks to Google, but if you just watched the news there was no mention of it that I heard. It's just a question. Why are you afraid of questions?

[Pants]

"so when you hear about a crime committed by someone named after an islamic conqueror from the crusades, or someone with a Hispanic-sounding name to be curious is natural for the informed, thinking person."

Or not, since apparently you're the only one here thinking it.

[Tennesseer]

May 10, 2013 10:37:55 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

TN- it wasn't widely asked, though I'm sure I'm not alone in wondering about it. I did finally dig it up thanks to Google, but if you just watched the news there was no mention of it that I heard. It's just a question. Why are you afraid of questions?

Weren't you the one who just the other day told me "If you aren't following the story, don't try and contradict me. Because I am"? Why yes, it was you. You're not doing a very good job of following the story Paul.

[Pants]

May 10, 2013 10:37:55 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

TN- it wasn't widely asked, though I'm sure I'm not alone in wondering about it. I did finally dig it up thanks to Google, but if you just watched the news there was no mention of it that I heard. It's just a question. Why are you afraid of questions?

*Snort*

As usual, Paul, your questions reveal far more about you than the actual answer to the question.

[Virgil Showlion]

May 10, 2013 10:06:46 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

May 9, 2013 20:35:33 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

The manhunt in Boston and Cambridge was a millionfold overreaction. Don't hold that up as a baseline "reasonable response" to anything.

I have to agree with everyone else here though in wondering what legal immigration status has to do with anything. The media could just as easily determine whether Mr. Castro owned a gun and then speculate that his captives would've escaped "if not for the gun".

If even a hint of that spin would bring about a well-deserved remote thrown at the TV, why should we be any more sympathetic to an anti-immigrant spin?

Illegal aliens account for between 17% and 29% of the prison population in the United States depending on the state- California, not surprisingly, spends $1 billion (with a "B") housing illegal alien criminals in prisons.  It is not unreasonable to ask, when you hear about a high-profile story involving crime(s) committed by a person with a Hispanic last name, "Hey, I wonder if this animal is even here legally?".  I think given the numbers- of course, I'm actually familiar with the numbers- it'd be foolish for a nation being put through what we were just put through by foreign invaders, fraudulent citizens, traitors, and/or illegal combatants- whatever you want to call them in Boston NOT to ask the question.  

If you want to be an ostrich and say legal immigration status isn't something we're having problems with, and need to get a handle on- so when you hear about a crime committed by someone named after an islamic conqueror from the crusades, or someone with a Hispanic-sounding name to be curious is natural for the informed, thinking person.

I agree that illegal immigration is a problem in the US, and I agree there's nothing inherently wrong with the question. But it's too far removed from the story at hand.

To get to the point where the question is relevant, the media would need to follow exhaustive lines of inquiry, starting with "How could this happen?". For example:

1. How could this happen?
2. Did the ghettoized nature of the neighbourhood strongly contribute to the perpetuation of the crime?
3. If so, what are the principle causes of such ghettoization? Is immigration to blame?
4. If so, is illegal immigration a significant contributor to such ghettoization?
5. Is the perpetrator an illegal immigrant?
6. If so, will clamping down on illegal immigration reduce such crimes in future?

Or:

1. How could this happen?
2. What was the motivation of the perpetrator? Why did he do what he did?
3. Are there signs or factors we can look for that would strongly indicate certain people are at high risk of perpetrating such crimes?
4. If so, would profiling the perpetrator based on his belonging to a notable minority constitute such a factor?
5. If so, what notable minorities have strong criminal tendencies? Are illegal immigrants one such minority?
6. If so, is the perpetrator an illegal immigrant?
7. If so, will clamping down on illegal immigration reduce such crimes in future?

If it isn't obvious from the above, it's an extremely long walk from A to B. Either line of inquiry could fill a feature length documentary just to reach the latter questions. Furthermore, most people here would (reasonably) claim that you wouldn't get past question 2 in the first line of inquity or questions 4 and 5 in the second line of inquiry. And to top it all off, I'm assuming that the last question in both lines is what you actually want the media to ask, but if the answer to "Is the perpetrator an illegal immigrant?" is 'no', and all indications are that this is the case, both lines of questioning are moot. We'd have constructed an elaborate hypothesis and exhaustive line of inquiry, but the only data point we have doesn't support the hypothesis.

So I'm sticking with the mob on this one. Illegal immigration needs some tough questions asked, but this story isn't the place to bootstrap that campaign.

[mmhmm]

I don't need so many words to say what I, as a member of "the mob", am saying,  Virgil.  I smell bigotry, and the stench is overwhelming!

[Tennesseer]

May 10, 2013 11:16:47 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

I don't need so many words to say what I, as a member of "the mob", am saying,  Virgil.  I smell bigotry, and the stench is overwhelming!

"'Jorge' Zimmerman"

[Deleted]

May 10, 2013 10:37:55 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

TN- it wasn't widely asked, though I'm sure I'm not alone in wondering about it. I did finally dig it up thanks to Google, but if you just watched the news there was no mention of it that I heard. It's just a question. Why are you afraid of questions?

Because it's a non-story.

How many news articles did you read about "Ted Kaczynski, a U.S. citizen of Polish descent" or "Timothy McVeigh, who immigrated from New York"? 

How many articles about Kermit Gosnell discuss the fact that he is African American?  He is a light-skinned man.  Why aren't they talking about whether or not he is biracial?  Or if he is a member of the Black Panthers or the NAACP?

Because it has nothing to do with the issue at hand.


You are also mistaking "widely asked" with "widely reported."  I'm sure that the reporters asked a lot of background questions about Ariel Castro and his brothers, but Puerto Rican heritage isn't unusual, controversial, or related to the crime.

Why are you afraid of answers to your questions?

[Virgil Showlion]

May 10, 2013 11:16:47 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

I don't need so many words to say what I, as a member of "the mob", am saying,  Virgil.  I smell bigotry, and the stench is overwhelming!

'Bigotry' is a near-worthless word on NSMNM, like 'racism'. It's thrown around far too casually.

Paul doesn't like illegal immigrants. They broke the rules coming into your country. They're an expensive burden on the state in many places. Most have little to no sense of American nationalism, and a good number import the very customs, ethnic feuds, and foreign nationalism that made their homelands near unlivable.

The CBO has clearly indicated that the taxes paid by US illegals is insufficient to offset the costs of social services offered to them. Other reports suggest illegals are responsible for a marginal degree of wage depression (especially for visible minorities), school overcrowding, and as much as $10 billion a year added to the federal deficit. As Paul indicates, they're responsible for a ridiculous amount of crime in some states. And all indications are that the US federal government will (sooner or later) extend blanket amnesty, granting illegals access to a much broader range of public services in exchange for their political favour.

Paul wants them out of your country. He doesn't want them to become the head and himself to become the tail, especially at a time when your nation is choking on debt and slowly circling the drain in any number of respects. He sees stories like this and the Boston bombing as an opportunity to express his worldview, just like Tenn and Weltz jump at any opportunity to attack organized religion. There is reason and justification for these viewpoints.

If you don't find "reasonable, justified bigotry" to be a blatant oxymoron, then by all means use 'bigotry'. We can all walk around calling each other bigots, pretending it actually means something.

[Tennesseer]

May 10, 2013 12:24:42 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

May 10, 2013 11:16:47 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

I don't need so many words to say what I, as a member of "the mob", am saying,  Virgil.  I smell bigotry, and the stench is overwhelming!

'Bigotry' is a near-worthless word on NSMNM, like 'racism'. It's thrown around far too casually.

Paul doesn't like illegal immigrants. They broke the rules coming into your country. They're an expensive burden on the state in many places. Most have little to no sense of American nationalism, and a good number import the very customs, ethnic feuds, and foreign nationalism that made their homelands near unlivable.

The CBO has clearly indicated that the taxes paid by US illegals is insufficient to offset the costs of social services offered to them. Other reports suggest illegals are responsible for a marginal degree of wage depression (especially for visible minorities), school overcrowding, and as much as $10 billion a year added to the federal deficit. As Paul indicates, they're responsible for a ridiculous amount of crime in some states. And all indications are that the US federal government will (sooner or later) extend blanket amnesty, granting illegals access to a much broader range of public services in exchange for their political favour.

Paul wants them out of your country. He doesn't want them to become the head and himself to become the tail, especially at a time when your nation is choking on debt and slowly circling the drain in any number of respects. He sees stories like this and the Boston bombing as an opportunity to express his worldview, just like Tenn and Weltz jump at any opportunity to attack organized religion. There is reason and justification for these viewpoints.

If you don't find "reasonable, justified bigotry" to be a blatant oxymoron, then by all means use 'bigotry'. We can all walk around calling each other bigots, pretending it actually means something.

And much like Virgil's need to attack gays and other groups he disagrees with.

Seriously Virgil. Make sure your house is clean before you drag others into your discussion. Your house is darn right filthy.

[mmhmm]

May 10, 2013 12:24:42 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

May 10, 2013 11:16:47 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

I don't need so many words to say what I, as a member of "the mob", am saying,  Virgil.  I smell bigotry, and the stench is overwhelming!

'Bigotry' is a near-worthless word on NSMNM, like 'racism'. It's thrown around far too casually.

Paul doesn't like illegal immigrants. They broke the rules coming into your country. They're an expensive burden on the state in many places. Most have little to no sense of American nationalism, and a good number import the very customs, ethnic feuds, and foreign nationalism that made their homelands near unlivable.

The CBO has clearly indicated that the taxes paid by US illegals is insufficient to offset the costs of social services offered to them. Other reports suggest illegals are responsible for a marginal degree of wage depression (especially for visible minorities), school overcrowding, and as much as $10 billion a year added to the federal deficit. As Paul indicates, they're responsible for a ridiculous amount of crime in some states. And all indications are that the US federal government will (sooner or later) extend blanket amnesty, granting illegals access to a much broader range of public services in exchange for their political favour.

Paul wants them out of your country. He doesn't want them to become the head and himself to become the tail, especially at a time when your nation is choking on debt and slowly circling the drain in any number of respects. He sees stories like this and the Boston bombing as an opportunity to express his worldview, just like Tenn and Weltz jump at any opportunity to attack organized religion. There is reason and justification for these viewpoints.

If you don't find "reasonable, justified bigotry" to be a blatant oxymoron, then by all means use 'bigotry'. We can all walk around calling each other bigots, pretending it actually means something.

Excuse me, Virgil, but I don't use the word "bigotry" casually.  Speak for yourself.

[Virgil Showlion]

And much like Virgil's need to attack gays and other groups he disagrees with.

Seriously Virgil. Make sure your house is clean before you drag others into your discussion. Your house is darn right filthy.

And what part of "There is reason and justification for these viewpoints." and "'reasonable, justified bigotry' [is] a blatant oxymoron" didn't you notice?

My point is that this forum isn't a festering pit of bigots because we all express strong opposition to various groups, policies, and practices. Paul's pet peeve is illegals and anti-nationals. Any US resident who identifies more with a foreign nation, or an ethnic minority, or an anti-national organization more than they identify with the United States of America is an affront to him. You may have noticed that he takes nationalism extremely seriously, both ideologically and in vivo.

Excuse me, Virgil, but I don't use the word "bigotry" casually.

Then I'll formally ask you to justify your position.

Why does Paul's strong dislike for illegals and anti-nationals constitute bigotry? Are his views unreasonable and unjustified? If so, explain why.

[mmhmm]

If it were only a "dislike" for illegal aliens and anti-nationals, it might not be an indicator.  It isn't, however.  My comment was made based on paul's posts over a period of time, and involving other minorities than the ones you've mentioned. That's as far as I'm willing to take it, Virgil.  I stand on what I said, and I'm entitled to my opinion without soliciting your approval.

[Deleted]

May 10, 2013 12:50:47 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

And much like Virgil's need to attack gays and other groups he disagrees with.

Seriously Virgil. Make sure your house is clean before you drag others into your discussion. Your house is darn right filthy.

And what part of "There is reason and justification for these viewpoints." and "'reasonable, justified bigotry' [is] a blatant oxymoron" didn't you notice?

My point is that this forum isn't a festering pit of bigots because we all express strong opposition to various groups, policies, and practices. Paul's pet peeve is illegals and anti-nationals. Any US resident who identifies more with a foreign nation, or an ethnic minority, or an anti-national organization more than they identify with the United States of America is an affront to him. You may have noticed that he takes nationalism extremely seriously, both ideologically and in vivo.

Excuse me, Virgil, but I don't use the word "bigotry" casually.

Then I'll formally ask you to justify your position.

Why does Paul's strong dislike for illegals and anti-nationals constitute bigotry? Are his views unreasonable and unjustified? If so, explain why.

The problem is that his focus is on Hispanics not illegal immigrants.
Lashing out at Hispanics because a small fraction of them are undocumented is irrational.  That would be like you lashing out at unmarried adults because a similar fraction of them are gay. Or at OB/GYNs because some of them provide abortions.

[Deleted]

 I've heard the clichè "the elephant in the room"... used to reference a big issue that is being avoided.
 "The 800-pound gorilla in the room" is a tweak on that clichè... which is employed by Aryan supremacists in reference to B&W racial conflict.
 Paul tweaked it to focus upon a man in Cleveland who made the national news.

 As for Paul's "pet peeves"... there are too many to keep track of, from "liberals" (his primary peeve) to "2% milk".
 What else he doesn't like: government, regulations, taxation, education (teachers, specifically), Feminism, reproductive rights for women, Islam, gay people, evolution, Science, facts, open-minded inquiry, non-dogmatic thought, etc,. etc., etc.  

[Virgil Showlion]

If it were only a "dislike" for illegal aliens and anti-nationals, it might not be an indicator.  It isn't, however.  My comment was made based on paul's posts over a period of time, and involving other minorities than the ones you've mentioned. That's as far as I'm willing to take it, Virgil.

Nationalism is the only consistent pattern I see. Paul is the first to criticize any racially-based political action (anti-national), racially-based organization (anti-national), or racially-based government boondoggle (anti-national) but he's also the first to sing the praises of figures like Herman Cain and Marco Rubio who decry these things. He resents any nation or group he sees as a threat to American ideals, minority or not, including Democrats (majority), the media (majority), unions (minority), the public sector (minority), illegal immigrants (minority), Muslims (minority), liberals (majority), terrorists of all colours (minority), social parasites (minority), overzealous social workers, activist judges, lawmakers run amok, and dozens of others.

He resents affirmative action and is right to do so. He resents political correctness and is right to do so. He resents the public aversion to racial profiling--including profiling firmly rooted in statistics--and is (usually) right to do so.

I'll grant you that he occasionally goes off the deep end w.r.t. several of the above, but that fact doesn't make him a bigot either.

I stand on what I said, and I'm entitled to my opinion without soliciting your approval.

Just as I'm entitled to disregard your opinion when you can't reasonably defend it.

I stand by my statement that 'bigotry' is used too casually.

The problem is that his focus is on Hispanics not illegal immigrants.

His problem is with any ethnicity or group that puts their ethnicity, ideals, culture, etc. above America. And to him, true American nationalism requires a person to be productive, law-abiding, ambitious, and integrated. Any group he sees flouting those ideals are fair game, and he'll target race, gender, religion, political orientation, or anything else. As Oscar says, his list of pet peeves is long and variegated.

[Deleted]

Bullshit, Virgil.

How did Ariel Castro put his Hispanic heritage about his American identity?  He put his douchebag pervert criminal identity above his American identity.  But Paul brought up his completely irrelevant ethnicity.

If you want to call Ariel Castro a bad American, I'll be the first to post a
(allegedly until he is found guilty in a court of law, blah blah blah due process matters...)  Castro is a bad person.  He is a bad man.  A bad American.  A bad Puerto Rican.  A bad Ohioan.

He is not bad because he is Puerto Rican.  Or bad because he is from Ohio.  He is bad in spite of those things.

I am all about some American exceptionalism.  But you don't get to use flag waving as an excuse for intolerance.  At least not my flag.



(and don't get me started on the number of causes about which Paul puts his religion ahead of his nationality.  I don't think it is wrong to be a Christian first and an American second, but if you are going to demand that other people put nationality above other aspects of their identity, you have to own how completely hypcritical that is)

[Virgil Showlion]

May 10, 2013 14:21:43 GMT -5 @craftysarah said:

Bullshit, Virgil.

How did Ariel Castro put his Hispanic heritage about his American identity?  He put his douchebag pervert criminal identity above his American identity.  But Paul brought up his completely irrelevant ethnicity.

If you want to call Ariel Castro a bad American, I'll be the first to post a
(allegedly until he is found guilty in a court of law, blah blah blah due process matters...)  Castro is a bad person.  He is a bad man.  A bad American.  A bad Puerto Rican.  A bad Ohioan.

He is not bad because he is Puerto Rican.  Or bad because he is from Ohio.  He is bad in spite of those things.

I am all about some American exceptionalism.  But you don't get to use flag waving as an excuse for intolerance.  At least not my flag.



(and don't get me started on the number of causes about which Paul puts his religion ahead of his nationality.  I don't think it is wrong to be a Christian first and an American second, but if you are going to demand that other people put nationality above other aspects of their identity, you have to own how completely hypcritical that is)

I agree that both lines of inquiry I listed are a stretch too far. And I agree that Paul isn't a tolerant individual.

Neither of those facts makes him a bigot. Bigotry is unrepentant hatred. A bigot harasses, maligns, and persecutes without concern for pretense. He (or she) doesn't explain himself or pay the slightest heed to criticism. He proudly acknowledges his prejudices. He is obsessive, single-minded, and rarely to be found among people who don't share his ideals. He wouldn't lift a finger to assist the target of his derision. He expects nothing of them, thinks nothing of them, and makes no exceptions.

If you find this to be a fair characterization of Paul, then call him a 'bigot'. If not, 'intolerant', 'biased', 'unchristian', 'petty' should suffice.

and don't get me started on the number of causes about which Paul puts his religion ahead of his nationality

Give us an example. I can think of at least half a dozen that show precisely the opposite.

[EVT1]

I don't see any real bigotry around here, just prejudice.  But some things are borderline- like thinking that Zimmerman did society a favor.

[mmhmm]

If you find this to be a fair characterization of Paul, then call him a 'bigot'. If not, 'intolerant', 'biased', 'unchristian', 'petty' should suffice.

All the latter are acceptable to me.  Put them all together and, as far as I'm concerned, you have a bigot.  I don't get my definitions of words from the Virgil Big Book of Word Meanings.

Definition of bigotry (Oxford Dictionaries):
noun
bigoted attitudes; intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself:

[Peace Of Mind]

May 10, 2013 13:42:31 GMT -5 @patiencetried said:

 I've heard the clichè "the elephant in the room"... used to reference a big issue that is being avoided.
 "The 800-pound gorilla in the room" is a tweak on that clichè... which is employed by Aryan supremacists in reference to B&W racial conflict.
 Paul tweaked it to focus upon a man in Cleveland who made the national news.

 As for Paul's "pet peeves"... there are too many to keep track of, from "liberals" (his primary peeve) to "2% milk".
 What else he doesn't like: government, regulations, taxation, education (teachers, specifically), Feminism, reproductive rights for women, Islam, gay people, evolution, Science, facts, open-minded inquiry, non-dogmatic thought, etc,. etc., etc.  

You forgot "facts" which are clearly a pet peeve as they are so rarely used in his posts.       

[Tennesseer]

I imagine a poster or two use this definition for bigotry:

"Bigotry is the expression of hatred or aggression towards those who are different. Examples of bigotry include racism and religious intolerance. Bigotry is common among atheists, elitists, racists, liberals, Muslims, homosexuals, and religious extremists (i.e. Westboro Baptist Church, Ku Klux Klan, Al Qaeda, etc.) towards critics of their ideologies. Some liberals deceitfully claim to uphold equality of all viewpoints and free speech, but are in fact routinely prejudiced against opposing viewpoints. They are particularly bigoted against Christians (and indeed faith in general) and Family Values. It is typical to see liberals refer to their opponents as "racists", "fascists", "Nazis", "rednecks", "fanatics", or any number of more profane slurs. Bigotry can also be evidently seen when people refer to others who disagree with them as "bigots" or "intolerant", and this is a severe form of hypocrisy because it excuses their accountability by blaming someone else."

www.conservapedia.com/Bigotry

Sounds like the author of that definition suffers from a profound persecution complex.

[Virgil Showlion]

Sounds like the author of that definition suffers from a profound persecution complex.

It sounds like he's using the term 'bigotry' far too loosely, which is our common theme.

If you consider 'bigoted' to be synonymous with 'intolerant', 'biased', 'unchristian', 'petty' as mmhmm does, and you don't assign any deep negative connotation to the word, then indeed "bigotry is common among atheists, elitists, racists, liberals, Muslims, homosexuals, and religious extremists" as the author portends. You've described yourself as "intolerant of intolerance", which (if it were actually true) would make you a bigot by the given definition. As I said to mmhmm, pretty much everyone on P&M is a 'bigot' if denotation means everything and connotation means nothing.

I don't get my definitions of words from the Virgil Big Book of Word Meanings.

Definition of bigotry (Oxford Dictionaries):
noun
bigoted attitudes; intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself:

Definition of foolish (Princeton Online Dictionary):
adjective
Silly; ridiculous: "he'd been made to look foolish".

Yet you recently made it clear that the word carried a powerful negative connotation that made it especially offensive in your mind. Hence there's obviously an Mmhmm Big Book of Word Meanings on the shelf there too.

[mmhmm]

May 10, 2013 19:04:06 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Sounds like the author of that definition suffers from a profound persecution complex.

It sounds like he's using the term 'bigotry' far too loosely, which is our common theme.

If you consider 'bigoted' to be synonymous with 'intolerant', 'biased', 'unchristian', 'petty' as mmhmm does, and you don't assign any deep negative connotation to the word, then indeed "bigotry is common among atheists, elitists, racists, liberals, Muslims, homosexuals, and religious extremists" as the author portends. You've described yourself as "intolerant of intolerance", which (if it were actually true) would make you a bigot by the given definition. As I said to mmhmm, pretty much everyone on P&M is a 'bigot' if denotation means everything and connotation means nothing.

I don't get my definitions of words from the Virgil Big Book of Word Meanings.

Definition of bigotry (Oxford Dictionaries):
noun
bigoted attitudes; intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself:

Definition of foolish (Princeton Online Dictionary):
adjective
Silly; ridiculous: "he'd been made to look foolish".

Yet you recently made it clear that the word carried a powerful negative connotation that made it especially offensive in your mind. Hence there's obviously an Mmhmm Big Book of Word Meanings on the shelf there too.

The difference, Virgil, is that I don't define the word for others, as you did.  I brought you the Oxford Dictionaries definition.  If you don't like it, feel free to make something up that suits you.  Just don't try to push it on me.

[chiver78]

May 10, 2013 19:04:06 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

If you consider 'bigoted' to be synonymous with 'intolerant', 'biased', 'unchristian', 'petty' as mmhmm does, and you don't assign any deep negative connotation to the word, then indeed "bigotry is common among atheists, elitists, racists, liberals, Muslims, homosexuals, and religious extremists" as the author portends. You've described yourself as "intolerant of intolerance", which (if it were actually true) would make you a bigot by the given definition. As I said to mmhmm, pretty much everyone on P&M is a 'bigot' if denotation means everything and connotation means nothing.

Virgil, I personally feel that everyone has the right to whatever opinions they choose, so long as they don't inflict their own moral opinions on the rest of us. I may not choose to interact with people whose opinions I find repugnant, but that is MY personal opinion and prerogative. I feel that I am "intolerant of intolerance" in that aspect, that if I feel someone is trying to influence lawmakers to include a personal "morality" based on whatever, I will fight that tooth and nail even if the outcome doesn't directly impact me. if that person wants to hold their opinion and conduct themselves within the confines of current law, that's their prerogative. their judgment is with their Maker, and who am I to say anything? as far as laws go, I have to pass judgment - who is anyone to judge anyone else's life?

quite frankly, I don't feel that is a bigoted opinion, and if you do, I'd like you to explain why.

[Virgil Showlion]

quite frankly, I don't feel that is a bigoted opinion, and if you do, I'd like you to explain why.

I'm the only one here that agrees with you it isn't a bigoted opinion.

mmhmm is sticking with the dictionary definition, which clearly states that bigotry is "bigoted attitudes; intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself". And since intolerant people clearly hold different opinions from you, your feeling "intolerant of intolerance" makes you a 'bigot', all justifications be damned.

Personally I see the word 'bigot' as carrying a world of connotative meaning and that we should respect when choosing whether or not to apply it. I provide my assessment of the connotative meaning in Reply #49. If you don't meet the given criteria, rest assured that I don't consider you a bigot.

We've run into the same problem with 'racism' in the past. Depending on who uses it, the word means nothing to me. It's the equivalent of "retard". The term has been so abused over time that the epithet no longer has any meaningful association to what it should mean.

[chiver78]

May 10, 2013 19:58:48 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

quite frankly, I don't feel that is a bigoted opinion, and if you do, I'd like you to explain why.

I'm the only one here that agrees with you it isn't a bigoted opinion.

mmhmm is sticking with the dictionary definition, which clearly states that bigotry is "bigoted attitudes; intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself". And since intolerant people clearly hold different opinions from you, your feeling "intolerant of intolerance" makes you a 'bigot', all justifications be damned.

Personally I see the word 'bigot' as carrying a world of connotative meaning and that we should respect when choosing whether or not to apply it. I provide my assessment of the connotative meaning in Reply #49. If you don't meet the given criteria, rest assured that I don't consider you a bigot.

We've run into the same problem with 'racism' in the past. Depending on who uses it, the word means nothing to me. It's the equivalent of "retard". The term has been so abused over time that the epithet no longer has any meaningful association to what it should mean.

I'm going to disagree with the line I've bolded here.

I haven't commented in this thread until late today, as I've been limited to my phone and didn't want to get into a heated discussion w/o the benefits of a full keyboard with which to argue my opinion. that said, there are quite a few posters here who also share that particular opinion, and they happen to fall on both sides of the aisle.

[Virgil Showlion]

May 10, 2013 20:10:03 GMT -5 chiver78 said:

May 10, 2013 19:58:48 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I'm the only one here that agrees with you it isn't a bigoted opinion.

mmhmm is sticking with the dictionary definition, which clearly states that bigotry is "bigoted attitudes; intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself". And since intolerant people clearly hold different opinions from you, your feeling "intolerant of intolerance" makes you a 'bigot', all justifications be damned.

Personally I see the word 'bigot' as carrying a world of connotative meaning and that we should respect when choosing whether or not to apply it. I provide my assessment of the connotative meaning in Reply #49. If you don't meet the given criteria, rest assured that I don't consider you a bigot.

We've run into the same problem with 'racism' in the past. Depending on who uses it, the word means nothing to me. It's the equivalent of "retard". The term has been so abused over time that the epithet no longer has any meaningful association to what it should mean.

I'm going to disagree with the line I've bolded here.

I haven't commented in this thread until late today, as I've been limited to my phone and didn't want to get into a heated discussion w/o the benefits of a full keyboard with which to argue my opinion. that said, there are quite a few posters here who also share that particular opinion, and they happen to fall on both sides of the aisle.

I'm being dramatic (hence the ).

mmhmm is the only one to thus far use the term 'bigotry' (Replies #22 and #37). evt has specifically claimed (s)he doesn't consider Paul's prejudice to be bigotry. I'm not... quite sure what Tenn thinks based on Reply #53.