olp1fan Posted December 17, 2011 Report Posted December 17, 2011 (edited) Cool story. You know when someone makes bigoted and racist comments and arguments that generally makes them a bigot or a racist, right? When someone says "I refuse to serve Muslims because their culture is backwards and primitive," they're a bigot. Putting your own culture, religion, and ethnicity above others' is the same as believing yours is superior. That is practically the dictionary definition of bigotry. So, if someone is going to make comments like that, you're damn right I'm going to call them a bigot or a racist. or you could just say that comment is racist or bigoted I've been called a bigot by you and wyly but I've never once made a comment about not serving them, or thinking christianity is better because I am not religious, I don't even think my ethnicity is better than theirs I just don't want them to bring their oppressive culture here because of the way it treats minorities, women, gay people and apostates and people converting from islam I'm not buying the kool aid you're selling but hey feel free to call me a bigot if it makes you feel like a big man you bully Edited December 17, 2011 by olp1fan Quote
cybercoma Posted December 17, 2011 Author Report Posted December 17, 2011 Using the search function, excluding this thread, this is the last time I used the word "bigot" in any form on this forum: Muslims are not a homogeneous group. By saying that you've shown that you're not only a bigot, but completely ignorant about the very thing you're bigoted against. I guess what they say is true. Ignorance breeds intolerance and bigotry. Mr. Canada was making an argument that all Muslims act in a particular way that is inferior to his religious/ethnic background. And excluding this thread, here are the times I said "racist" in the Face Veils thread: It would be racist and Islamophobic to blame the Burqa for someone using a mask in a bank robbery. Not only was that hypothetical, but I was talking to American Woman. Show me where I called you a racist or a bigot. Quote
olp1fan Posted December 17, 2011 Report Posted December 17, 2011 (edited) Show me where I called you a racist or a bigot. you did, I'm not going to waste my time going through all of my almost 2000 posts though just to prove a bully wrong Edited December 17, 2011 by olp1fan Quote
jbg Posted December 17, 2011 Report Posted December 17, 2011 Enraged at Kent's blatant dishonesty, Trudeau shouts out "you piece of shit!" Finally, an honest comment out of a politician's mouth during QP.A "fuddle duddle" moment? Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
cybercoma Posted December 17, 2011 Author Report Posted December 17, 2011 you did, I'm not going to waste my time going through all of my almost 2000 posts though just to prove a bully wrong That's why there's a link up top that says Search Forums. I already did it for you. I couldn't find the post where I called you a bigot nor can I remember ever doing so. I'll make you a deal, if you find the post where I call you (and not your arguments) a bigot, I will apologize. If you don't, then I trust you will have the integrity to admit you were wrong and apologize as well. Quote
olp1fan Posted December 17, 2011 Report Posted December 17, 2011 That's why there's a link up top that says Search Forums. I already did it for you. I couldn't find the post where I called you a bigot nor can I remember ever doing so. I'll make you a deal, if you find the post where I call you (and not your arguments) a bigot, I will apologize. If you don't, then I trust you will have the integrity to admit you were wrong and apologize as well. I've admitted to being wrong before and said sorry to quite a few posters when I was wrong, don't worry about my integrity its yours that you should worry about Quote
cybercoma Posted December 17, 2011 Author Report Posted December 17, 2011 I wasn't worried about your integrity. I can't find the post and you're quite obviously slighted. I want to know what post it was, so that I can apologize for being an "asshole" as you say. I searched for every instance of the words "bigot" and "racist" on the forum, narrowing it down to my own posts and none of them had anything to do with you. Nevertheless, I'm sure you will be able to show me my post that pissed you off so much, so I can own up to it and apologize. Quote
jbg Posted December 17, 2011 Report Posted December 17, 2011 I wasn't worried about your integrity. I can't find the post and you're quite obviously slighted. Well this is a post where you called another poster a bigot (link). Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
cybercoma Posted December 17, 2011 Author Report Posted December 17, 2011 (edited) Well this is a post where you called another poster a bigot (link). I pointed that one out in my post above. Edited December 17, 2011 by cybercoma Quote
jbg Posted December 17, 2011 Report Posted December 17, 2011 I pointed that one out in my post above. I didn't see it. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Jack Weber Posted December 17, 2011 Report Posted December 17, 2011 A "fuddle duddle" moment? Sure.. Dad was right then...Son was right now... Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
Scotty Posted December 17, 2011 Report Posted December 17, 2011 If someone says, "your ideas are like those of the Third Reich because A, B, and C," that's a lot different than saying, "stfu, Nazi scum!" One is criticizing you and the other is criticizing your ideas. There is a difference. Forgive me if I don't grasp your legalistic notions of technical differences. In responding to a poster's comments, you suggest he is a Nazi. That is not the kind of debating style I respect. Do you feel it's also okay to say "Those comments could have come from a drooling moron in an institution." or perhaps "I bet a lot of child molesters think like that". After all, you're not attacking the poster, right, just the words, right? Well, that might fly with the moderator, perhaps, depending on his mood, but it's deliberately insulting to the other poster as far as I'm concerned. Any reasonably unbiased interpretation of the rules with regard to treating other posters with respect would call that out without hesitation. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Scotty Posted December 17, 2011 Report Posted December 17, 2011 If you're going to make racist and bigoted argument, then don't be surprised if people call you a racist or a bigot. And who is the arbiter of what is a racist and bigoted argument? The definitions of such terms are often stretched out of all recognition by people with agendas and ideological beliefs. And why do you feel it is necessary to not simply analyze the words, and refute them based on their clear misconceptions and illogic? why do you feel attacking the poster is a requirement? Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
cybercoma Posted December 17, 2011 Author Report Posted December 17, 2011 Forgive me if I don't grasp your legalistic notions of technical differences. In responding to a poster's comments, you suggest he is a Nazi. I did not call him a Nazi, a bigot, or a racist. Quote
cybercoma Posted December 17, 2011 Author Report Posted December 17, 2011 And who is the arbiter of what is a racist and bigoted argument? The definitions of such terms are often stretched out of all recognition by people with agendas and ideological beliefs. And why do you feel it is necessary to not simply analyze the words, and refute them based on their clear misconceptions and illogic? why do you feel attacking the poster is a requirement? Racism and bigotry are logical flaws. They hold that an entire culture, race or ethnicity is wrong because it is "inferior" in some way or another. It them makes an ecological fallacy holding that every individual in that group will exhibit the same characteristics as the ones deemed "inferior". Quote
Scotty Posted December 17, 2011 Report Posted December 17, 2011 A "fuddle duddle" moment? No. The elder Trudeau's words were said more quietly, and were more in the nature of contempt. The younger Trudeau's words were shouted out like the scream of an angry, entitled child denied something. To the likes of Trudeau Jr, whose only accomplishment is to bear his father's name, outrage was fully justified because the government denied funding to the member in question. Nothing outrages a member of the left so much as the government denying funding. As I said, very much like spoiled children denied what they believe is only their due. How dare the government refuse to fund the member in question so they can go to Durban and yell and belittle the government for a foreign audience (and of course, to make herself look noble for the voters back home). How dare they! The outrage and sense of entitlement are palpable. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Scotty Posted December 17, 2011 Report Posted December 17, 2011 Racism and bigotry are logical flaws. They hold that an entire culture, race or ethnicity is wrong because it is "inferior" in some way or another. It them makes an ecological fallacy holding that every individual in that group will exhibit the same characteristics as the ones deemed "inferior". I don't believe anyone makes a generalized statements about a group without being aware there will be a number of its members who differ from this generalization. Nevertheless, you can take generalizations on categories as being 'generally' true, or perhaps commonly true. As, for example, in how certain brands and models of cars are referred to by their generalized reliability. No doubt certain models have much higher problems than the norm, but within those models I'm equally certain there will be numerous vehicles which perform flawlessly. Does this mean we can't dismiss the notion of buying Brand A or Brand B because they're always breaking down? Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
cybercoma Posted December 17, 2011 Author Report Posted December 17, 2011 Yes. Because people are exactly like a manufactured good. Quote
Evening Star Posted December 17, 2011 Report Posted December 17, 2011 How dare the government refuse to fund the member in question so they can go to Durban and yell and belittle the government for a foreign audience (and of course, to make herself look noble for the voters back home). How dare they! The outrage and sense of entitlement are palpable. If this was all the government did, JT would not have lost his temper this way. Quote
Scotty Posted December 18, 2011 Report Posted December 18, 2011 Yes. Because people are exactly like a manufactured good. I'm not sure I get your point. The logic is the same in either case. The group has a much higher failure rate than normal, and so we say "don't select from that group" or "that group sucks". But of course, that doesn't mean every single entity within that group is going to be a failure. Some will perform flawlessly. This is reflexively understood. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Scotty Posted December 18, 2011 Report Posted December 18, 2011 If this was all the government did, JT would not have lost his temper this way. That IS all the government did. It can't ban someone from traveling wherever they want to. It just wouldn't bring them along as a member of the government group. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Jerry J. Fortin Posted December 18, 2011 Report Posted December 18, 2011 That IS all the government did. It can't ban someone from traveling wherever they want to. It just wouldn't bring them along as a member of the government group. There was a little more to it. In the end an apology was made for the behavior, the speaker ruled the apology was made, and as far as I can see on the technical side of things its all done. Now the politics have begun. Quote
Scotty Posted December 18, 2011 Report Posted December 18, 2011 There was a little more to it. In the end an apology was made for the behavior, the speaker ruled the apology was made, and as far as I can see on the technical side of things its all done. Now the politics have begun. I think it was an indication of the immaturity and entitlement mentality of Trudeau, and, by extension, all his ilk. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Jerry J. Fortin Posted December 18, 2011 Report Posted December 18, 2011 I think it was an indication of the immaturity and entitlement mentality of Trudeau, and, by extension, all his ilk. You are kidding right? Quote
cybercoma Posted December 18, 2011 Author Report Posted December 18, 2011 I'm not sure I get your point. The logic is the same in either case. The group has a much higher failure rate than normal, and so we say "don't select from that group" or "that group sucks". But of course, that doesn't mean every single entity within that group is going to be a failure. Some will perform flawlessly. This is reflexively understood. You don't understand that people aren't like a manufactured good? That's tough to understand? Tell me about the wishes and desires of a car. Let me know what a Lincoln think about the Good and ethics. How does a car feel and react when it's being oppressed and discriminated against? The logic is the same. Seriously? People are just like a branded product. Even your own terrible metaphor falls apart when you consider product changes and improvements over time or the various models within a brand. You think a 2012 Elantra has the same reliability as a 1993 Elantra? For that matter, do you think you can judge all GM products on the failure rate of the Aveo? Because that's exactly what you're arguing. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.