Bigotry, Intolerance towards those with different opinions

[mort]

keep it civil please

[Cyclone]

Yes I can see your interpretation, but the keyword is 'especially' and not exclusively, now can you see my interpretation or is your view too entrenched ?

 

You haven't explained, so I can't understand your interpretation, it appears at first glance to be wrong.

[Cyclone]

I don’t know any career criminals so I couldn’t say if I like or dislike any of them, I certainly wouldn’t dislike them as a collective

So you're saying that you don't dislike career criminals... How strange.

I suspect that you are not telling me the absolute truth now in order to avoid being caught by your own definition of bigot.

and their opinions wouldn’t have any bearings on whether I like them or not. I can dislike what they have done and think they deserve punishment without disliking them as a person or group of people.

Cobblers. You can dislike the actions of someone but to then claim that it doesn't mean that you dislike the person would be a very rare situation.

I know and like plenty of people whose opinions I disagree with, but I don’t dislike anyone because of their opinions.

That wasn't the question though was it. It was about more than just an isolated opinion that you happen to disagree over.

I don’t know any racist so I couldn’t say if I dislike any.

How strange again, maybe you're a very unusual person.

[MrSmith]

So you're saying that you don't dislike career criminals... How strange.

That’s right, to dislike them as a collective without knowing them has individuals wouldn’t make any sense. I don’t know the circumstances that caused them to commit crime, people commit crime for many reasons and although they deserve to be punished for their crimes they don’t deserve to be collectively disliked. But disliking for for being criminals wouldn’t be bigotry because it’s not their opinions that caused your dislike, it was their actions.

 

 

 

I suspect that you are not telling me the absolute truth now in order to avoid being caught by your own definition of bigot.

 

It’s not my definition, it’s the dictionaries definition, I didn’t create the language I just use it in the most appropriate way I can and you are of cause entitled to hold the opinion that I am lying if you wish.

 

 

Cobblers. You can dislike the actions of someone but to then claim that it doesn't mean that you dislike the person would be a very rare situation.

 

Only if you are an intolerant person, maybe most of the people you know are intolerant and this is causing you to assume most people are intolerant.

 

That wasn't the question though was it. It was about more than just an isolated opinion that you happen to disagree over.

So your life long best friend gets drunk one night and nicks a car, because you dislike his actions does this mean you no longer like him and he ceases to be your friend, or do you accept he made a mistake and continue to be his friend.

 

How strange again, maybe you're a very unusual person.

 

Or a very tolerant person that accepts that all humans are different and will have different views and opinions which they are entitled to have no matter what they are.

[Halibut]

It’s not my definition, it’s the dictionaries definition, I didn’t create the language I just use it in the most appropriate way I can and you are of cause entitled to hold the opinion that I am lying if you wish.

 

I think you try and twist and manipulate it to suit your own ends in a way that does you no favours whatsoever.

[MrSmith]

I think you try and twist and manipulate it to suit your own ends in a way that does you no favours whatsoever.

 

In what way do you think I have twisted and manipulated words? I just use them according to the dictionary definition.

[Halibut]

In what way do you think I have twisted and manipulated words? I just use them according to the dictionary definition.

 

It's patently obvious; you've spent God knows how many posts trying to mangle the terms 'bigot' and 'bigotry' to suit your own agenda.

 

You claim to use them according to the dictionary definition - what you actually mean is 'one particular definition' and you conveniently ignore others.

 

By the way, you have conveniently repeatedly avoided the point I've made twice i.e. that it was clear from the Brown case that the woman concerned did indeed appear to hold a very negative view of immigrants as evidenced by the tone and content of what she said.

[MrSmith]

 

You claim to use them according to the dictionary definition - what you actually mean is 'one particular definition' and you conveniently ignore others.

 

 

Isn’t that what you are doing each time you claim I'm wrong, I have used the word in its broadest sense, you are stuck with a very narrow meaning of the word which you insist is the only meaning, and claiming the definition I used, which is in the dictionary is wrong.

 

I have never claimed that the definition you are cyclone are using is incorrect, it’s just a very narrow meaning of the word.

[Cyclone]

That’s right, to dislike them as a collective without knowing them has individuals wouldn’t make any sense.

It makes perfect sense to me. By definition (career criminal) they have values which conflict strongly with mine and they behave in a way which I dislike.

I don’t know the circumstances that caused them to commit crime, people commit crime for many reasons and although they deserve to be punished for their crimes they don’t deserve to be collectively disliked.

You did read both words I used right? Career criminal. Not someone forced to steal bread to stay alive.

But disliking for for being criminals wouldn’t be bigotry because it’s not their opinions that caused your dislike, it was their actions.

It's disliking a group, and it's disliking them because of their different moral values (which lead them to behave in a specific way).

 

 

 

 

 

It’s not my definition, it’s the dictionaries definition, I didn’t create the language I just use it in the most appropriate way I can and you are of cause entitled to hold the opinion that I am lying if you wish.

It's a very narrow definition that you've seized on and refuse to be corrected on. I'm not sure you haven't actually gone beyond the definition you quote several times though by declaring that someone is a bigot for calling someone else a bigot.

 

 

 

Only if you are an intolerant person, maybe most of the people you know are intolerant and this is causing you to assume most people are intolerant.

Maybe... Or maybe you're trying to avoid being caught out by not being entirely truthful.

 

 

So your life long best friend gets drunk one night and nicks a car, because you dislike his actions does this mean you no longer like him and he ceases to be your friend, or do you accept he made a mistake and continue to be his friend.

First of all, he's not at that point a career criminal is he?

Secondly, that behaviour would be so completely out of character that I'd have to urge him to get medical help.

If it were behaviour supported by a change in values, ie that he'd decided it was okay to steal things, then he'd very rapidly become an ex-friend.

 

 

 

Or a very tolerant person that accepts that all humans are different and will have different views and opinions which they are entitled to have no matter what they are.

I might believe that if I'd not seen your posts in the past, but that clearly isn't the situation, you're far from tolerant.

[Cyclone]

Isn’t that what you are doing each time you claim I'm wrong, I have used the word in its broadest sense, you are stuck with a very narrow meaning of the word which you insist is the only meaning, and claiming the definition I used, which is in the dictionary is wrong.

 

I have never claimed that the definition you are cyclone are using is incorrect, it’s just a very narrow meaning of the word.

 

The definition that you've adopted depends on your interpretation of intolerance, which is so broad as to render your definition of 'bigot' meaningless because it applies to everyone (except you apparently).