Chris Broussard is for lack of a better word a bigot

[Dirkadirkastan]

Originally Posted by DirkFTW

Perhaps I am being too subtle, but I'm pointing out how rephrasing the choice as "nice-sounding A v. horrible-sounding B" doesn't carry much weight. It's a game everyone can play to paint the other side negatively while ignoring the underlying disagreement.

And I think your dichotomy should more properly be "your belief is bigoted" vs. "you are bigoted because you hold that belief." Frankly that seems like trying to split hairs or starting off a really offensive comment with "no offense but..." I mean, look at the thread title and your attempt to discredit Mormonism as crazy.

It's not "splitting hairs," it's the key to the whole thing.

Mormonism does indeed contain the doctrine that black people are descendants of Cain, and their skin color is a curse. Regardless of how any individual member may view blacks, do you think the belief system itself should go forever unchallenged because opposing any belief system is bigotry against its members?

... But no one can challenge as bigotry the idea that religion is "stupid," "backward," and "questionable"? You have a lot of great statements on freedom of speech... you just choose to make them one-way streets which undermines the intellectual honesty.

You can certainly challenge the idea itself, my response is that the "bigot" label isn't valid. You can't be bigoted toward a religion (or any belief system) any more than you can find the square root of a pork chop. It's because you're applying incompatible terminology.

Let's start from here: It's not pretend.

I noticed you dodged my question about the KKK. You really think that anyone who stands up to them is no more than an intolerant hypocritical bigot? Or at the very least, is just as worthy of the label as a KKK member?

My ultimate response to the real issue you identify is that labeling something as 'bigotry' has no real intellectual value and doesn't contribute anything. And if you go further by using bigotry labels as a means for classifying permissible and impermissible views, you risk swapping one intolerance for another--a differently-bigoted world.

In a world with diverse and diametrically opposed views, pure tolerance will be dissonant, not harmonious. So why would truly tolerant people be surprised or offended to hear intolerance?

You are equating belief systems to genetic identity. It's such an obvious error that I've spent too much time trying to point out over and over. Why are you having such a hard time with this?

[DirkFTW]

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

You are equating belief systems to genetic identity. It's such an obvious error that I've spent too much time trying to point out over and over. Why are you having such a hard time with this?
...
You can't be bigoted toward a religion (or any belief system) any more than you can find the square root of a pork chop. It's because you're applying incompatible terminology.

I guess I'm having a hard time believing that someone would actually think it's impossible to be bigoted against a religion, and I hoped to get you to see otherwise. My understanding of bigotry is larger than just genetics (i.e., includes religion, language, and nationality). Maybe you really dislike the possibility of being viewed as a bigot, so you want to re-define bigotry to exclude your views. I guess we will have to agree to disagree on what constitutes bigotry.

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

Regardless of how any individual member may view blacks, do you think the belief system itself should go forever unchallenged because opposing any belief system is bigotry against its members?
...
I noticed you dodged my question about the KKK. You really think that anyone who stands up to them is no more than an intolerant hypocritical bigot? Or at the very least, is just as worthy of the label as a KKK member?

I didn't dodge it; I thought it tangential to the conversation and a distraction. And given our disagreement on what bigotry even is, I'm not sure discussing the particular views of Mormons or the KKK do more than invite many more tangential questions that avoid the core disagreement. (Do you define the KKK as a religion. If not, what about secret societies like the Masons--can people opposed to them be bigots too? What about people who think global warming is a hoax and a part of a great conspiracy? Creationists? Must the KKK's views be banned/silenced or can I just disagree with them? Does my disagreement have to include ridicule and shaming in order to be acceptable? Are they really hypocrites or is that another negative-sounding label that they 'deserve' because they are KKK? Am I allowed to try to reason with them to change their mind? If reasoning fails, what am I required to do then to be seen as 'tolerant'? Do I have to get physical with them if words are not enough?)

And what do you mean by Mormon beliefs going 'unchallenged'? (Lots of people disagree with Mormonism today). This seems premised on the belief that bigotry must be prohibited... which goes back to my original question(s) regarding bigotry accusations towards religious teachings: do you want to dictate acceptable doctrine to the Mormons? Do you want to rewrite the Book of Mormon or perhaps edit sermons and Sunday school lessons? Do you want to penalize some Mormon beliefs or perhaps prohibit Mormonism altogether? Do you want to ridicule and bully their members until they renounce their faith? If that doesn't work, do you turn to force and/or force of law? How would any of that be prettier or different than the bigotry you find so ugly?

And here we are again at the foundational disagreement as to the definition of 'bigotry', where you seem to think mistreating someone based on their religion is never bigotry. My assumption regarding why you brought up the specifics of Mormonism and the KKK is that you are hoping to use them as examples of 'crazies' that deserve collective hatred/shaming/bullying/censorship (and therefore it can't be 'bigotry' because it is 'acceptable').

My point is still this: calling people names like 'bigot' isn't really intellectually useful. It may feel good in a juvenile sense, but you're not trying to change anyone's mind at that point. And if you're hoping to go a step (or more) further towards bullying and censorship to forcibly make people change their minds or religious beliefs... well that's rather intolerant and 'medieval'. Hardly the sunshine and rainbows that are advertised for the new world order.

[Thespiralgoeson]

Originally Posted by DirkFTW

My point is still this: calling people names like 'bigot' isn't really intellectually useful. It may feel good in a juvenile sense, but you're not trying to change anyone's mind at that point. And if you're hoping to go a step (or more) further towards bullying and censorship to forcibly make people change their minds or religious beliefs... well that's rather intolerant and 'medieval'. Hardly the sunshine and rainbows that are advertised for the new world order.

I think any mature adult can at least agree to this much. While I don't agree with fundamentalist Christianity's stance on homosexuality, name calling certainly doesn't help anybody. I do think that people need to be held accountable for (what I see as) intolerant, misguided, and harmful beliefs. But yes, everyone should be tactful and civil in order for any kind of debate to be productive.

[Dirkadirkastan]

Originally Posted by DirkFTW

I guess I'm having a hard time believing that someone would actually think it's impossible to be bigoted against a religion, and I hoped to get you to see otherwise. My understanding of bigotry is larger than just genetics (i.e., includes religion, language, and nationality). Maybe you really dislike the possibility of being viewed as a bigot, so you want to re-define bigotry to exclude your views. I guess we will have to agree to disagree on what constitutes bigotry.

I thought you considered it a useless label. Now you want to use it in a broader sense? OK...

I didn't dodge it; I thought it tangential to the conversation and a distraction. And given our disagreement on what bigotry even is, I'm not sure discussing the particular views of Mormons or the KKK do more than invite many more tangential questions that avoid the core disagreement. (Do you define the KKK as a religion. If not, what about secret societies like the Masons--can people opposed to them be bigots too? What about people who think global warming is a hoax and a part of a great conspiracy? Creationists? Must the KKK's views be banned/silenced or can I just disagree with them? Does my disagreement have to include ridicule and shaming in order to be acceptable? Are they really hypocrites or is that another negative-sounding label that they 'deserve' because they are KKK? Am I allowed to try to reason with them to change their mind? If reasoning fails, what am I required to do then to be seen as 'tolerant'? Do I have to get physical with them if words are not enough?)

I don't know why you keep bringing up this crap about "silencing" anybody. There has been no talk from me about legislating against their free speech. Everyone has a right to be hateful, and I have a right to call out their hate speech. That doesn't mean there's no fundamental difference between challenging ideas and claiming genetic superiority.

That's what I find most disturbing about your position. It doesn't look like you see any fundamental difference between the KKK's hatred of blacks and my own denouncement of the KKK. It's as if you think all ideas are worthy of equal respect and we just have minor philosophical differences.

I find their position despicable. Yet according to you, that makes me just as hateful, and therefore a hypocrite.

And here we are again at the foundational disagreement as to the definition of 'bigotry', where you seem to think mistreating someone based on their religion is never bigotry.

My point is still this: calling people names like 'bigot' isn't really intellectually useful. It may feel good in a juvenile sense, but you're not trying to change anyone's mind at that point. And if you're hoping to go a step (or more) further towards bullying and censorship to forcibly make people change their minds or religious beliefs... well that's rather intolerant and 'medieval'. Hardly the sunshine and rainbows that are advertised for the new world order.

Ultimately, I don't care what terms you want to apply to any of this. But putting down someone's genetic qualities is in my mind different from (and worse than) denouncing any beliefs they may have. Your point from the beginning is that they are somehow the same.

[Scoobay]

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

Ultimately, I don't care what terms you want to apply to any of this. But putting down someone's genetic qualities is in my mind different from (and worse than) denouncing any beliefs they may have. Your point from the beginning is that they are somehow the same.

sorry hope this isn't too off topic but since you put it in this way i was just curious... I am reading your argument as calling homosexuality a sin is "putting down someone's genetic qualities". am i correct that this is what you are saying?

I am wondering what the evidence is that sexual orientation is genetically determined. i know some feel that there is conclusive evidence to such but i can't say that i've come across anything that is all that convincing. any help would be appreciated.

i think this is an important question. If you believe orientation is genetic then i can begin to understand the position that calling homosexuality a "sin" can be taken as offensive because if it's genetic then you have no choice. however i don't think everyone feels that way.

furthermore i think you always have a choice - is there genetic predisposition for other sexual behaviors? animals? objects? sorry don't mean to delve into too many specifics but it just starts to get really complicated for me thinking about all the implications...

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by Scoobay

sorry hope this isn't too off topic but since you put it in this way i was just curious... I am reading your argument as calling homosexuality a sin is "putting down someone's genetic qualities". am i correct that this is what you are saying?

I am wondering what the evidence is that sexual orientation is genetically determined. i know some feel that there is conclusive evidence to such but i can't say that i've come across anything that is all that convincing. any help would be appreciated.

i think this is an important question. If you believe orientation is genetic then i can begin to understand the position that calling homosexuality a "sin" can be taken as offensive because if it's genetic then you have no choice. however i don't think everyone feels that way.

furthermore i think you always have a choice - is there genetic predisposition for other sexual behaviors? animals? objects? sorry don't mean to delve into too many specifics but it just starts to get really complicated for me thinking about all the implications...

Well not necessarily genetic but it is congenital. It is believed for whatever reason that too much or too little androgens produced by the fetus OR mother causes the fetus' sexual orientation to switch. It could have nothing to do with the fetus itself but with the mother. There have been many studies on estranged siblings showing that younger brothers are much more likely to be gay than older brothers. This would mean that the first brother had an effect of the mother's body's response to testosterone.

Anyhow, regardless of what caused it, It is a scientific fact that it is biological. There have been multiple studies on gay and straight brains showing a difference. Here is one:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7456588.stm

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by SeanL

Anyhow, regardless of what caused it, It is a scientific fact that it is biological.

It's a theory, not a fact - conducting a few studies is hardly conclusive evidence of anything whatsoever. Don't let your agenda muddle the vocabulary laid out by science.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Underdog

It's a theory, not a fact - conducting a few studies is hardly conclusive evidence of anything whatsoever. Don't let your agenda muddle the vocabulary laid out by science.

Unfortunately the "the science is decided" has become the latest way of shouting down opposition. It is screamed without anything being "decided" but it allows the folks on the correct side of the argument another shouting point.

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by Underdog

It's a theory, not a fact - conducting a few studies is hardly conclusive evidence of anything whatsoever. Don't let your agenda muddle the vocabulary laid out by science.

It is as much as a fact as anything else. There has been tons of studies on this subject.

On a completely separate point - this is a pet peeve of mine - I'm sure you mean hypothesis and not theory. Hypothesis and theory in the scientific field have two very different meanings.