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.

Goodbye bigoted free speech denier.

Nice evasion. Any chance you could answer the actual question I asked?

I am of course no such thing, but I do note that you acknowledge you are a bigot. Honest, at least.

If you were to explain in what actual way I am in your strange world "bigoted", that would be useful for reference.

Oh what a shocker. He said 'Goodbye' and then re-appears a few hours later when he can't handle not having the final word.

Denying someone's right to be 'bigoted', even in their own heads? Dear me. Sounds like some kind of anti free speech, thought police type coercive society. I've heard North Korea is nice this time of year

You are so stupid it isn't fair.

I wrote "Goodbye, bigot" never expecting you would agree you were one.

The point of it was for you to blurt back some defence as to how or why you are not a bigot, and then I planned to explain you MUST be a bigot according to YOUR definition, since you are intolerant of numerous things.

However, a certain level of wit and slow thought, probably Neanderthal or thereabouts, was required on your part for it to work.

I overestimated you.

Turning briefly to your puerile ramblings, I did not deny someone's right to be bigoted, I said I did not support someone being bigoted. Feel free to be as bigoted as you like in that head of yours. Why would someone who is opposed to bigotry SUPPORT you being bigoted, though? I would not support it one bit. Indeed, I would find it extremely unfortunate and regrettable. Is this too hard for you? Maybe you could get your dictionary out again, it could I suppose help.

Also I do not see that "having the final word" comes into it. Certainly not from my side. I will post for as long as I feel interested enough, thus exercising my right of free speech. If you don't say something else idiotic, or as another option which may be easier for you, if you post something too stupid to bother with, in either of those cases you are very welcome to "the last word", if that is what makes you happy.

Well yes you did....

"I don't even remotely support their "right" to be bigoted in their own heads".

So you [ido[/i actually support the right for someone to be bigoted.

Which means that you have either:

1) Changed your opinion in the space of a few days; or

2) Incorrectly expressed your own opinions in your initial post.

The rest of your post is just claptrap which is not worthy of a substantive response.

FFS I said I don't support the right to be bigoted. That right sadly exists, otherwise there would be no right for me not to support, now would there, you thick ?


Translation: "I can't think of anything to say, but am too childish to know when to shut up".

Resorting to insults because you know you have been outsmarted.

Next time maybe your 'Goodbye' should actually mean goodbye. Save yourself getting too het up because someone challenges you on the internets

The bigot doth protest too much, methinks. You really are a very silly boy. The idea of being challenged by you brings Denis Healey's dead sheep to mind.

But there I think I'll leave it, unless you improbably actual have any thoughts, as opposed to puerile nonsense.

Would that be denier 15? I personally prefer sheer.

[url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27346071Another witch hunt in full flight...[/url

An investigation is underway after a couple of lads in the RAF regiment dared to take a picture of themselves with a dead Taliban after that big attack on Camp Bastion in 2012. So, should they: A- apologise, B- be sacked, C- resign, D- face jail, or E- get a bit of a bollocking and everyone man up and get on with their lives. I vote E.

I despair. We train these lads to kill and get all worked up over 2 pictures when they've done their job. A picture isn't mistreatment, it's a picture. It may not be particularly dignified but these boys are in the killing game, a picture is probably the least of that dead chap's worries.

[url=http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c15_1396568591Link to original pictures, some NSFW but not particularly graphic.[/url

Pathetic.

I suspect they will get major administrative action, or pinged with Conduct Prejudicial to Good Order and Military Discipline, which is a catch-all offence to deal with things the military don't like.

I also think there is something in the Geneva Convention about posing with dead bodies.

Stupid thing to do, should be disciplined harshly enough so that it's a deterrent to others but not a sacking or anything like that.

It seems to me that the BDLT (Big Daft Lad Theory © Jerry Chicken) applies here.

Absolutely. Stupid and deserves a slapped wrist, but it's a million miles from something like Abu Graib. It's a couple of lads, probably just been through that fierce firefight, taking a picture of the moment.

Jerry might be surprised to know I've quoted his theory many times, and I bet I'm not the only one.

The Big Daft Lad theory is a broad church and welcomes all applicants.