Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Not Me
What do you mean by bigotry? I am asking this in all seriousness because if you look the word up in the dictionary, the definition means something broad like intolerance of other's beliefs. It seems to me that it is OK and quite well-respected to be intolerant of certain beliefs.

Are you that bored where you really want to play semantic games? Yes, that is the technical definition, but I submit that the word has also come to mean intolerance of other people without logical reason.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Speak for yourself. I live vicariously just imagining that all of us wealthy unsexy (sunburnt, bearded, pot-bellied) white guys . . .

Speak for yourself.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Are you that bored where you really want to play semantic games?

BOARD MOTTO!

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Are you that bored where you really want to play semantic games? Yes, that is the technical definition, but I submit that the word has also come to mean intolerance of other people without logical reason.

This isn't a semantic game. It is important to understand how society's definition of prejudice/bigotry changes with the times and how there are no absolutes.

I think all religions lack logical reason. So do other atheists. If we say that, people jump down our throats that we are bigots. Yet at one time, many thought the scientologists were a cult and openly said so. Now, as more and more people join the scientologists, they are considered a religion and if you think that is freakish to follow a shitty science fiction author's teachings as a religion, you are bigot.

At one time, practicing homosexuality was considered evil because the bible says it is a sin to have homosexual sex. Now if you think that, you are a bigot.

At one time and still to this day in some societies, practicing polygamy was/is considered something god wanted/wants you to do. It makes perfect logical sense to these people that a man should be able to have as many wives as he can afford to support.

While I agree that homosexuality, like heterosexuality, is an immutable characteristic, religion is not. You choose your religion. However, anyone can make up any belief they want, even a failed science fiction writer or delusional freaks like Jesus and Mohammad and Moses (or maybe they weren't delusional, just their followers were), and if they get enough people to believe in their teachings, it is a religion and you cannot criticize it. But you can speak out against polygamy. What is the difference? Only the number of people who believe the ideas.

Logic has nothing to do with what is considered bigotry. What is considered bigotry changes with the times and is arbitrarily based on the number of people who believe the ideas.

Ty thinks it is OK to be prejudice against fundamentalist mormons who believe they must adhere to polygamy in this life to achieve godhood. He is a bigot because of his intolerance for their religious beliefs.

However, anyone who doesn't share his ideas on gay marriage is a bigot in his opinion.

This isn't a semantic game. It is the reality that what is prejudice/discrimination/bigotry depends on how popular an idea is. And that is about as anti-American as it gets.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
I got 14/14. Hank?

13/14. I got #13 wrong, I always confuse W with the one Roman emperor* who returned to the farm after making Rome safe.




*how could I not find this guy's name- there are basic flaws in my google abilities.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I have yet to hear a credible explanation of how a gay marriage harms anyone else --

2 gay men live next door to me, and our yard/flowers all look for shit in comparison. And don't get me started on the potluck block dinner parties.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
2 gay men live next door to me, and our yard/flowers all look for shit in comparison. And don't get me started on the potluck block dinner parties.

I don't see how polygamy harms anyone as long as it is consensual and underage women are not forced into it. Just because some polygamist marriages are abusive doesn't mean that they all are. Many heterosexual marriages are very abusive to women. And there are lesbians that abuse their SO, too. Should we ban all marriages then because some are abusive?

If you talk to the women in these polygamous relationships, they say they are happy. Just like the muslim women who are taught from birth that they should be shrouded from head to toe in cloth will say they are happy. It is not just fundamentalist mormons that have religious practices that are abusive towards women. Islam is no less abusive towards women than fundamentalists mormons. Hell, fundamentalits islamics are more abusive towards women and I don't see anyone speaking out against forcing women to cover themselves from head to toe. Should we ban those religious practices that are abusive towards women? I say yes.

But who decides what is abusive and whether someone is harmed or not? Ty has appointed himself the arbitor of what is bigotry and what is legitimate discrimination because it harms someone. Tell me Ty, why is it OK to ban polygamy because it harms women, but it is not OK to ban religions from forcing women to cloak themselves from head to toe? Tell me how that isn't just as if not more so harmful toward women? At least the women in the fundamentalist mormon sects can go to the fucking grocery store without a fucking sheet covering everything but their eyes.

Where is there any logic (as club has used as the dividing line for what is bigotry) in any religious practice? Yet we let people do things that are harmful towards women all the time if they label it a religious belief. Why not polygamy?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
If SH was helping Al Queda and Al Queda killed Americans, would that count in your opinion?

If SH was helping Charles Manson, he should be tried in California courts, but there's about as much evidence of that as there is that he was helping Al Qaeda.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
BOARD MOTTO!

Please. Much better: Are you that board where you want to play semantic games?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
If SH was helping Charles Manson, he should be tried in California courts, but there's about as much evidence of that as there is that he was helping Al Qaeda.

I don't agree. There is no evidence at all that he was helping Charles Manson and there is some evidence that he was helping Al Quaeda. You just don't believe the evidence or don't think that there is enough evidence to constitute conclusive proof.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
13/14. I got #13 wrong, I always confuse W with the one Roman emperor* who returned to the farm after making Rome safe.




*how could I not find this guy's name- there are basic flaws in my google abilities.

http://www.grex.org/~omni/roman.htm

[Not Me]

I am liking Teresa Heinz more each day:

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/sto...p-144049c.html

Heinz, who has been a fixture on the campaign trail, is no shrinking violet. She once told a writer for Elle magazine that she would jokingly warn her first husband that if he ever strayed, "I'll maim you. Not kill you, just maim you."

I tell you, she got lucky with that first husband of hers, didn't she? All that money and he didn't cheat, either.

[Not Me]

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2004071781,00.html

They are posting her pic on the website above if you want to take a look (and I think you do).

She is certainly cute, but nothing to lose your heiress wife over.

But then, I never could believe that Clinton picked Monica as the women to tarnish his reputation with.

You men really are from mars.

[Not Me]

http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/...al/7953102.htm

Now this link says she is a tall blonde. However, in that pic in the link in my post above, which looks like her high school year book picture, she was brunette. Either it is not her in the pic, or she discovered peroxide sometime after college.

Lord knows my drapes don't match my carpet, KWIM?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Not Me
Where is there any logic (as club has used as the dividing line for what is bigotry) in any religious practice? Yet we let people do things that are harmful towards women all the time if they label it a religious belief. Why not polygamy?

You are making this far too complicated.

One is not a bigot if one does not believe in religion, but one is a bigot if em does not like religious people solely because they are religious. The difference is that it the dislike is not based on logic.

One is not a bigot if one does not believe in same-sex marriage, but one is a bigot if em does not like homosexuals. Ty's point is that those against same sex marriage are against it as a proxy for really being against homosexuals.

I am in the minority on polygamy, as I believe it should be legal because, as you are well aware, there is not a good justification for making it illegal.

Incest falls into a different category because there are serious health and psychological reasons for the prohibition.

I don't know enougn about beastiality, but I suspect there are legitimate health and psychological reasons for banning that as well.