MrSmith Posted September 18, 2012 Author Share Posted September 18, 2012 Disagreeing with someone is clearly not intolerance. If it is, then by your definition everyone is a bigot and the word is meaningless. If he had been intolerant of her, what would he have had to do to demonstrate his intolerance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 See post #57 You've seized on a minor part of the definition of what bigotry is and are trying to use it to define the entire word. It doesn't work like that. Intolerance to a group of people is part of bigotry. Disagreeing with an opinion, or forming the opinion that someone else is a bigot is not. I don't even know how you can be intolerant of an opinion, it doesn't make a lot of sense, so to attempt to say that he was and that he is therefore a bigot is wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted September 18, 2012 Author Share Posted September 18, 2012 So the fact that you refuse to agree with me on this makes you a bigot? I'm talking to you, I won't be talking about you behind your back because I'm not intolerant of you and I enjoy our discussions. He on the other hand couldn't get away from her quick enough and then he talked about her behind her back, he appeared to be intolerant of her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted September 18, 2012 Author Share Posted September 18, 2012 I've replied to your post of a simple definition of bigot several times. I don't think I've seen you explain how disagreeing with someone is intolerance by whatever definition you use. Bigot only has one meaning, but it isn't what you believe. You won't do, because that not what I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dosxuk Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 You won't do, because that not what I think. But that's the impression you're portraying. That GB is a bigot because he was intolerant because he disagreed with the woman's opinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted September 18, 2012 Author Share Posted September 18, 2012 He might have shouted her down, or refused to have a rational debate on the issue if she had tried to do so. He did none of these things, he made a comment in what he thought was privacy to express his opinion of her attitude towards immigrants. She didn't have an attitude towards immigrants, she just asked him a question, and he would most definitely not have shouted her down in public, no matter how intolerant he was. He wouldn’t have talked about her behind her back if he had been tolerant of her opinion, he appeared to like her until she asked him that question, then he demonstrated his dislike of her behind her back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted September 18, 2012 Author Share Posted September 18, 2012 See post #57 You've seized on a minor part of the definition of what bigotry is and are trying to use it to define the entire word. It doesn't work like that. Intolerance to a group of people is part of bigotry. Disagreeing with an opinion, or forming the opinion that someone else is a bigot is not. I don't even know how you can be intolerant of an opinion, it doesn't make a lot of sense, so to attempt to say that he was and that he is therefore a bigot is wrong. You can't but you can be intolerant of a person because of the opinions they hold, this is bigotry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted September 18, 2012 Author Share Posted September 18, 2012 But that's the impression you're portraying. That GB is a bigot because he was intolerant because he disagreed with the woman's opinions. He appeared intolerant of her because of the opinions she had and not because he disagreed with them, she didn’t appear intolerant of anyone yet he chose to call her a bigot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 She didn't have an attitude towards immigrants, she just asked him a question, and he would most definitely not have shouted her down in public, no matter how intolerant he was. He wouldn’t have talked about her behind her back if he had been tolerant of her opinion, he appeared to like her until she asked him that question, then he demonstrated his dislike of her behind her back. I think it's clear from the tone and content of what she said that she held a pretty negative attitude towards immigrants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 She didn't have an attitude towards immigrants, she just asked him a question, and he would most definitely not have shouted her down in public, no matter how intolerant he was. He wouldn’t have talked about her behind her back if he had been tolerant of her opinion, he appeared to like her until she asked him that question, then he demonstrated his dislike of her behind her back. With respect, you're talking nonsense. You cannot possibly base any kind of reasoned argument on what an individual may or may not have said several years ago. You've no idea whether he would or wouldn't - pretending that you do just makes you look foolish frankly. I can imagine many situations where he could have spoken about her 'behind her back' in which he might wholeheartedly agreed with an opinion she'd expressed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.