Seeing as the definition of bigotry involves intolerance of the opinion of others I'd say it is quite relevant.

Then you'd be either concentrating on the wrong thing, or going off on a tangent as you can't win the main argument, and so want to deflect or sidetrack it.

It's not working.

I qualified that statement with "When I call someone a bigot, it’s not because I disagree with their opinion, or do not tolerate their opinion." You would be better off addressing that, instead of selectively ignoring the point and hoping nobody will notice what you're doing.

You said in your earlier post that you don't support their right to be bigoted which implies that you don't support their right to an opinion.

Your subsequent qualification is noted.

But I would like to know who decides whether someone is being bigoted or not? Aren't we all bigots at some point if we don't tolerate the opinions of others. What is tolerance? How far do you have to go to tolerate a view? Listen to it, accept it? All a bit vague isn't it. But if you hound someone out of a job for not having the same view as you, or even the majority of the population - isn't that intolerance?

You make a good point regarding the 'culture' of Mozilla which I don't know about.

Typical Sin Bin shooting match.

The 'intelligentsia' (who are deeply suspicious and intolerant of anyone they consider to be even slightly right of centre), are running around accusing others of being bigoted, whilst on other threads panning anyone who disagrees with their point of view.

Anyhow...have 5 rounds. And in your own time....at the target in front....go on.

Absolute nonsense and you know it. Opinion in general - good. Bigotry - bad. How is that hard?


Albert J. Blenkinsop.


No.


He resigned. Challenging bigotry is not intolerance in any sensible or relevant way. You might as well accuse someone of bigotry for being intolerant of paedophiles, or serial killers, or genocidal maniacs. You are trying to mount a defence of the indefensible with the absurd.

Who decides?



I didn't define the word. The authors of various dictionaries did.

This is a bit too weird. I find myself in an "argument" with a man who cannot recognise bigotry, implying that there is no such universal concept but it is a matter of individual decision; yet simultaneously hides behind some other person's dictionary definitions.

A man who sees that bigotry includes an element of intolerance, and so leaps to the position that anyone who is intolerant of anything is therefore a bigot. Hey presto. Not noticing, perhaps, that "bigotry" and "intolerance" are actually different words for a reason.

Dictionaries reflect the meaning of words. They don't set it. If you don't know what bigotry is you shouldn't try to discuss it until you have gained that understanding.

I am intolerant of glucose. Does that make me a bigot? I shouldn't imagine so as I actually like sweet things and even Lucozade. Maybe I will have to revisit my position on the substance.

What on earth are you on about?!

You didn't seem to appreciate earlier that 'bigoted' involved intolerance of other's views. Then you accuse me of a lack of understanding when it is in fact you that needs to 'gain an understanding'.

Might be wise to come down off your high horse too.

To be clear, if I said that black people were little more than animals and ought to be treated as such, do you think it would be bigotry for a person not to tolerate my views?

According to the dictionary definition of bigotry it could be.

All people are animals.

Goodbye, bigot.