The Bigot

[LovingKayla]

bigot (ˈbɪɡət)
— n
a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race


I heard this on the radio today and I hadn't really ever thought about it from this perspective. I had always thought of a bigot as someone that didn't like someone else of another color. I had never expanded that to include not tolerating anothers view.

It was about marriage and how the democrats want to have gay marriage. OK fine, but you can't change one part of the equation. If we can have gay marriage we should also have polygamy. That got my attention because I have always wanted to be apart of a polygamist relationship. I'm totally down for a few extra wives around.

My question to the board would be, how many of you are quite literally bigots? If you do not tolerate and treat with distain the other point of view, then you are a bigot.

I have rethought many of my views with that in mind, but I still have no room in my heart for a government run nanny state.

This can go pretty much anywhere, I was just wondering what the temperature was around here regarding this topic.

Are we Bigots?

[Whirlaway]

I don't buy into the definition, as presented.

[LovingKayla]

What definition would you choose? It's all I could find.

[Iaintliein]

Yes, it's another one of those words many use, and few bother to look up. My bigoted idea is that we are each and every one a bigot when it comes to something.
I've gotten into heated discussions on several "conservative" blogs about gay marriage, inevitably a religious type will bring in the "slippery slope" arguments not only about polygamy but also incest, beast*** and pedo**** (that which we will not discuss). My stock reply is that people who go from the beginning of the above list and end up at the end of it live in a very dark place mentally. They seem to be incapable of grasping the term "consenting adults".

As for polygamy, I'm sure it's got advantages and disadvantages. My own personal experience with polygamy is that it's rather confusing. When I say something to my wife, I never know which one will answer, the nice one. . . or the other one.

[Whirlaway]

Definiton of Bigot: A word used by some to diminsh or dismiss the viewpoint of those they disagree with !

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Iaintliein

Yes, it's another one of those words many use, and few bother to look up. My bigoted idea is that we are each and every one a bigot when it comes to something.

.

Agreed...




...you is a bigot!

Originally Posted by Iaintliein

As for polygamy, I'm sure it's got advantages and disadvantages. My own personal experience with polygamy is that it's rather confusing. When I say something to my wife, I never know which one will answer, the nice one. . . or the other one.

Now that is funny right there ...

[anaximander]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Definiton of Bigot: A word used by some to diminsh or dismiss the viewpoint of those they disagree with !

That and the old stand by 'racist'.
Heaven forbid these dopes have to defend
their position with something other than
lies and rhetoric.

[Little Stevie]

Most laws distill from the needs and wants of society at large. However, even before Citizens United, it had become a wish list for Big Business and Mega Churches. With CU, the flood toward those "bigoted" views will rise.

Listening to the talk radio around Dallas makes most of those listeners nothing more than "wingnut parrots" who learn to repeat completely untrue and indefensible "catch phrases". Among those are "government can't create jobs" and "America has turned into a 'Socialist State' under Obama".

Socialism in America started with the military, the mail system, the courts and dozens of other cooperative efforts to improve the situation for citizens. Along the way, corruption entered the picture and man's more selfish interest began to shape the regulatory system to suit certain those interests albeit to the detriment of others.

Those who disagree with the way the regulations affect them are often co-bigots who actually oppose each other and fight for chgange (on one hand) or the status quo (on the other).

As far as polygamy, David Koresh and many others, have agreed with Kayla.

We have an "age of consent" for marriage that is different than the two ages we often cite as the ages of "majority" (18 and 21) - Society tells legislators what they think and what those ages ought to be.

Elect Rick Santorum (who is really un-electable) and you might soon see regulatory pressure on masturbation.

A ticket of Rick Santorum and Christine O'Donnell would ensure a LOT of pent up "energy and aggression" or "stress" as some call it.

So, Kayla, I too reject your hypothesis as short-sighted and narrow-minded.

In your view, polygamy is about having multiple wives. To others it might mean multiple husbands. The next thing you'd be biatching about would be that spinners might have 5 husbands under your scenario.

Extrapolate further and fathom that they would thereby command unfair portions of the earnings landscape.

We might have five women trying to live off one man's earnings when those lucky spinners might have five guys earning just one of them money and a lavish lifestyle.

To take that idea a step farther, we already know that women typically earn 30% LESS than what men earn for doing the same work (above the entry level jobs).

So even if the five non-spinner wives worked, life would still be unfair because some girls inherited the "skinny gene".

[CuteOldGuy]

Stevie, add big unions to your list of terribles, and I might actually agree with you on something.

[anaximander]

Lil steve is simply deploying a common crypto leftist
tactic- accuse your opponent of your vices
rules for radicals crap

The truth is much more enduring.
The military is not an entity that lends itself
to individuality. It's a straw dog argument.
The fact you present it should serve as the
red flag it is that all you speak are halftruth
misguiding propaganda.

The postal service hardly qualifies as socialist
much less a successful example of anything
other than union greasing and govt inefficiency.

Legal systems are not socialist entities.
That's just twisting logic.

Inspite of your idea that laws are distilled from
the needs of the people at large is conveniently
discounting the last 500 years of anglo law
was under essentially the decalogue of the Torah.
Our Founding Fathers had no intent for
this nation to be anything but a bible
believing state. The Constitution is unfit
for any other type of people.

Ben Franklin started the post office.
He also help build the first public hospital.
Guess which one he thought the govt had
no business with. He had a hard ride out.
At no point did he expect the govt to
take care of him- a govt he helped create.

Socialism is corrupt period.
Call it what it is: stealing, theft
Taking the product of one who earned it
and giving to one who didn't is wicked.
Only the orphan, widow, or infirm are
exempt from the no work no eat rule.

Common civil servants are not
socialist inherently. It's really reaching
on your part.

The colonists practically starved and froze
when socialism was first introduced in this
fair land. Quickly abandoning soc. the survivors
embraced free market priciples and flourished.
It looks like their descendents will need
another winter refresher course on the
numerous shortcomings of socialism.

Just need to freeze and starve the no goods out.