packsaddle Posted July 19, 2007 Share Posted July 19, 2007 C'mon Longhaul, are you really confused? Do you really think that advocating freedom for all people is bigoted under any definition? If so, please explain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GernBlansten Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 Really folks, the difference between bigotry and just being judgemental is prejudice. Prejudice is, as the name implies, the process of "pre-judging" something. In general, it implies coming to a judgment on the subject before learning where the preponderance of the evidence actually lies, or formation of a judgement without direct or actual experience. You may think the act of anal sex is immoral, but does that mean every homosexual who doesn't engage in anal sex is immoral? Is a celebate gay man immoral? Or do you group all gay men as immoral because a few do engage in immoral activity? Whenever you group people together and base a judgment on the whole and not the individual, one moves from judgemental to bigotry. Independent on whether we derive our judgment on individual conceptions or religious teachings. We all fight this tendency. I constantly fight my tendency to label all fat people as lazy and without willpower. Am I a bigot? Yes, when I don't restrain it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GernBlansten Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 Really folks, the difference between bigotry and just being judgemental is prejudice. Prejudice is, as the name implies, the process of "pre-judging" something. In general, it implies coming to a judgment on the subject before learning where the preponderance of the evidence actually lies, or formation of a judgement without direct or actual experience. You may think the act of anal sex is immoral, but does that mean every homosexual who doesn't engage in anal sex is immoral? Is a celebate gay man immoral? Or do you group all gay men as immoral because a few do engage in immoral activity? Whenever you group people together and base a judgment on the whole and not the individual, one moves from judgemental to bigotry. Independent on whether we derive our judgment on individual conceptions or religious teachings. We all fight this tendency. I constantly fight my tendency to label all fat people as lazy and without willpower. Am I a bigot? Yes, when I don't restrain it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongHaul Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 >>"Main Entry: bigot Pronunciation: 'bi-g&t Function: noun Etymology: French, hypocrite, bigot : a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packsaddle Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 LongHaul, I was fishing from a pier many years ago. A guy down the way caught an eel. No one else was catching anything so we all gathered around. I was a young biology student so I wanted to hold the animal and see it more closely. The guy who caught it didn't mind but then he started telling everyone that eels were pretty much like snakes, only in the ocean. I started to correct him and he got mad at me. So I tried to explain the differences between a fish and a reptile and it just made him angrier. I am convinced he was ready to commit a violent act to defend his strongly held view. And even though he was completely wrong in his assertion, I decided that the whole crowd was free to live in ignorance if the price of their enlightenment was pain and suffering for me. I slithered back to my place on the pier. I see your point. For the life of me I can't view the guy as a bigot. However, if he had been standing in front of a black child (and I did have this experience later in life as well) explaining how this child was inherently inferior because of some false ideas about human physiology, for example, I would have quickly and easily applied the term, bigot, to him. I think I follow what Gern wrote in that prejudice is something that can be set aside if we are available to knowledge and reasoning. If we reject knowledge and reasoning in order to sustain or protect our prejudices, then we just might fit the definition of 'bigot'. The snake/fish thing still gets my goat to this day. So does the experience with the redneck and the black child.(This message has been edited by packsaddle) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GernBlansten Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 If I said all Nazis were bad people, I would be a bigot. If I said Hitler was bad but the Pope is good, I would not be a bigot. In the former, I'm judging based on group affiliation. In the latter, I'm judging the individual. Bigotry is a negative trait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrentAllen Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 tjhammer, Interesting numbers. Have you also heard that a lot of people tend to be more liberal when they are young, and grow more conservative as they get older? This transformation seems to take place about the time they get their first real job and start paying taxes. Leaving the liberal college campus for the work place probably has some affect, as well. Add marriage and kids to the mix, and many of those 20 year-old liberals are suddenly 30 year-old conservatives. I guess I missed the training where Scouts and Scouters are taught to hate gays. Is the BSA intolerant for not allowing gays in? One could make that argument. Are we also intolerant for not allowing others (girls) in? That same argument could be made, again. Does that make us bigots? I don't think so, but if you go, heh - that's your right. If you honestly think so, how can you associate with us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GernBlansten Posted July 21, 2007 Share Posted July 21, 2007 I don't think BSA teaches bigotry towards gays, but I think some scouters bring it with them and it permeates the ranks. Intolerance is the primary reason I left the church. I didn't feel that Jesus taught intolerance yet many of his followers practice it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongHaul Posted July 21, 2007 Share Posted July 21, 2007 Ok Gern how about we start swapping terms as packsaddle suggested yeasterday. How about if I said all mass murderers were bad people, bigot or not? All child molesters were bad people? All rapist? Doesn't bigotry apply no matter what the identified group is? If I said that I supported the BSA's RIGHT to exclude gays, girls and the godless BUT didn't necessarily agree with BSA's decision to do so, bigot or not? LongHaul(This message has been edited by LongHaul) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tjhammer Posted July 21, 2007 Author Share Posted July 21, 2007 BrentAllen - anecdotally, yes, people seem to become more conservative as they grow older (and I think you're right, it often correlates to those payroll taxes!). But I have no reason to believe that's going to happen again with this generation. It makes for a catchy observation, though. "Conservatism" has been utterly redefined in the past 15 years. It certainly doesn't stand for rugged individualism or small and hands-off government. If people grew older and wanted to pay less taxes, expect more self-reliance and be free of a nanny-state government... they aren't going to find any of that in the Christianist conservatism that's emerged today. The merger of evangelical Christianity with the politics of the Republican party has severely damaged BOTH (to my chagrin, in both cases). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tjhammer Posted July 21, 2007 Author Share Posted July 21, 2007 BTW, can we agree prejudice against "Nazi's, mass murders, slave traders, child molesters and rapists" is a bit different than prejudging me because I'm gay? Otherwise, I think thou doth protest a bit too much about being called a bigot, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongHaul Posted July 21, 2007 Share Posted July 21, 2007 tjhammer, do I understand you to say that being prejudice is OK as long as it's against the "right" group? LongHaul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packsaddle Posted July 21, 2007 Share Posted July 21, 2007 LongHaul, The exercise won't work if you use redundant or circular situations. The criminal categories that you mentioned are, by definition, bad - at least in this society. That being the case, it is hardly bigoted to correctly apply the descriptor that follows from the definition. Is this really not clear to you? A rapist is, by definition, a bad person. A criminal is, by definition, a bad person (or at least someone who did something bad enough to be convicted of a crime). It's like saying that a bad guy is 'bad'. Accurate application of a description based on the definition is neither a prejudiced nor a bigoted act. However, if a person applies a pejorative to a group that is not defined in those terms, then either the application of the pejorative must be based on some kind of evidence or else it might be prejudice. If evidence to the contrary does not change a prejudicial characterization (obstinately held) then bigotry could be invoked. C'mon, this is not that difficult. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongHaul Posted July 21, 2007 Share Posted July 21, 2007 >>A criminal is, by definition, a bad person (or at least someone who did something bad enough to be convicted of a crime). >If evidence to the contrary does not change a prejudicial characterization (obstinately held) then bigotry could be invoked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packsaddle Posted July 21, 2007 Share Posted July 21, 2007 Yeah, I've been reading that other thread. I'm not clear about what you just meant in your reply though. If you are saying that it is better to examine ideas than to attack persons holding the ideas, you must know by now that I agree with you. If you are saying that some of us employ terms like 'bigot' in a way that detracts from discussion of ideas, I also agree with you. I wish we would refrain from using labels as a means of dismissing ideas without actually addressing the ideas. However, the term 'bigot' exists and as long as it is available, I think it would be nice to employ it correctly...and you seemed to be confused about this. Or am I wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now