Intolerant People Who Call People "Bigots"

[Obama 2012 1,714]

One thing is having a debate using arguments that are honest.

What we have here- and on this particular issue I am not singling you out per se- is a disingenuous display of a consistent refusal to dissociate fact (Muslim extremists, etc etc, are not representative of Islam) from the truth of what is written in plain sight.

One needs to pay attention to the things people say if one wants to form an opinion of said people. So yes, we should all be serious unless we're pranking and that becomes evident after a short while.

Once again, there is no need to cherry pick the argument being used to cover up the fact that bigoted views are being promoted. That is a fail. Once you can state, verbatim, what those logical, non-bigoted arguments are, without being bigoted in the process, then you have an honest debate.

Some people aren't cherry-picking anything and are getting called bigots. Hell, even I get called a bigot for daring to say that I can see where people are coming from in their view of not wanting to Mosque there that close to Ground Zero. This is even after I've said I don't care that it's there or not there and that if someone wants to put one there, that's their perogative. Just because I defend other people's views then i'm a "bigot" it's damn absurd.

As I said though, the problem is the debate. If you're only argument is "well you're just a bigot" without explaining positive aspects, then you're nothing more than a bigot yourself for being intolerant of other's views.

For the Mosque argument especially, all one needs to do is argue about the positive aspects, point out where others are wrong about those who want to build it, etc. - You can't win the day on name-calling. You can win the day however by making others look like a fool by proving them wrong. It's about substance on BOTH sides of the argument.

Automatically labelling someone you don't know, who might think one thing is a bad idea, is silly. It doesn't make them a bigot at all. The bigot is the one who is blatantly intolerant in their debate. The "no no no" crowd to the Mosque who don't listen to any reasoning are bigots, just as the "no no no" crowd to other's opinions on the Mosque that might be negative on the Mosque being there.

Use facts, details, etc. to win the day. Name-calling does nothing but stir up trouble. It's like the people who scream 'racism' just because someone opposes something proposed by Obama... Utterly ridiculous.

[justashooter 430]

There are no extreme elements of Islam. Once you become extreme, you are not practicing Islam.

millions of wahibists would disagree with you.

[Welshcookie 17]

PM me the location you're directly focusing on. Do remember though that it appears you're basing that focus of yours onto something else altogether that is being used to sugarcoat real bigotry, as is the course on VJ. I'd like to get a precise post to see if these people doing the bigot-labeling are doing so due to poor debating skills or if perhaps I can clarify what it is they were trying to say to you- and perhaps you felt unreasonably singled out.

Hal...my point is that the many people who have expressed that they feel the mosque is 'insensitive' have been tarred with the bigot brush, that somehow they cannot differentiate between terriorists and law abiding citizens, I don't understand why it is so difficult to accept that some people find it insensitive for different reasons...I believe there are people who oppose it because of bigotry and there some people who are ignorant and therefore fearful of Islam, there are those that lost loved ones in 9/11 and are sensitive to it, to call them ALL bigots is a bit much imo.

I didn't get involved in the threads at all ( I have found that these kind of VJ arguments are just futile merry-go-rounds at best, but I do read them as I do actually like to read lots of different points of view...and sometimes I do learn some things ) but my own point of view has been labelled as 'bigoted' and I wanted to address that, which is why I commented in this thread.

Sorry for the lateness of answering you...I went shopping mid post

[slim 1,525]

their view of not wanting to Mosque there that close to Ground Zero. This is even after I've said I don't care that it's there

How far away is acceptable?

I mean, you've made it clear that you're not opposed to it, per se, but can understand why some folks would be and have defended their right to be upset over it. So, how far is "OK" to have a mosque, and when would you STOP supporting their right to be upset over it?

[HAL 9000 96]

Some people aren't cherry-picking anything and are getting called bigots. Hell, even I get called a bigot for daring to say that I can see where people are coming from in their view of not wanting to Mosque there that close to Ground Zero. This is even after I've said I don't care that it's there or not there and that if someone wants to put one there, that's their perogative. Just because I defend other people's views then i'm a "bigot" it's damn absurd.

As I said though, the problem is the debate. If you're only argument is "well you're just a bigot" without explaining positive aspects, then you're nothing more than a bigot yourself for being intolerant of other's views.

For the Mosque argument especially, all one needs to do is argue about the positive aspects, point out where others are wrong about those who want to build it, etc. - You can't win the day on name-calling. You can win the day however by making others look like a fool by proving them wrong. It's about substance on BOTH sides of the argument.

Automatically labelling someone you don't know, who might think one thing is a bad idea, is silly. It doesn't make them a bigot at all. The bigot is the one who is blatantly intolerant in their debate. The "no no no" crowd to the Mosque who don't listen to any reasoning are bigots, just as the "no no no" crowd to other's opinions on the Mosque that might be negative on the Mosque being there.

Use facts, details, etc. to win the day. Name-calling does nothing but stir up trouble. It's like the people who scream 'racism' just because someone opposes something proposed by Obama... Utterly ridiculous.

I agree with your statements in this post 100%. Lets be clear on one thing- some people are overly sensitive, and I wonder why. Usually this is a sign of them hiding something quite obvious, and no- I am not pigeon holing everyone that may have a valid reason to oppose a Mosque that will not affect them in any way beyond their perception of having it in the proposed location.

I asked particular posters about their experience with being called bigots where perhaps they are not. And the subsequent explanations I got from what I assume to be those that called them such, are that those same people write things that are bigoted in nature and context. Do not ignore context in favor of semantics.

When claims are made that can be easily verified, back them up. Otherwise you'll continue falling down the fail hole.

[HAL 9000 96]

Hal...my point is that the many people who have expressed that they feel the mosque is 'insensitive' have been tarred with the bigot brush, that somehow they cannot differentiate between terriorists and law abiding citizens, I don't understand why it is so difficult to accept that some people find it insensitive for different reasons...I believe there are people who oppose it because of bigotry and there some people who are ignorant and therefore fearful of Islam, there are those that lost loved ones in 9/11 and are sensitive to it, to call them ALL bigots is a bit much imo.

I didn't get involved in the threads at all ( I have found that these kind of VJ arguments are just futile merry-go-rounds at best, but I do read them as I do actually like to read lots of different points of view...and sometimes I do learn some things ) but my own point of view has been labelled as 'bigoted' and I wanted to address that, which is why I commented in this thread.

Sorry for the lateness of answering you...I went shopping mid post

No prob... I pulled an all righter writing and will pay for this @ the gym if I pull myself away from lab.

Lets not confuse generalizations with specific instances that can be substantiated.

With this particular issue, very few arguments are based in anything other than bigotry, so its a dangerous line to quantify one's POV without stepping on toes.

[Peikko 1,575]

Some people aren't cherry-picking anything and are getting called bigots. Hell, even I get called a bigot for daring to say that I can see where people are coming from in their view of not wanting to Mosque there that close to Ground Zero. This is even after I've said I don't care that it's there or not there and that if someone wants to put one there, that's their perogative. Just because I defend other people's views then i'm a "bigot" it's damn absurd.

As I said though, the problem is the debate. If you're only argument is "well you're just a bigot" without explaining positive aspects, then you're nothing more than a bigot yourself for being intolerant of other's views.

For the Mosque argument especially, all one needs to do is argue about the positive aspects, point out where others are wrong about those who want to build it, etc. - You can't win the day on name-calling. You can win the day however by making others look like a fool by proving them wrong. It's about substance on BOTH sides of the argument.

Automatically labelling someone you don't know, who might think one thing is a bad idea, is silly. It doesn't make them a bigot at all. The bigot is the one who is blatantly intolerant in their debate. The "no no no" crowd to the Mosque who don't listen to any reasoning are bigots, just as the "no no no" crowd to other's opinions on the Mosque that might be negative on the Mosque being there.

Use facts, details, etc. to win the day. Name-calling does nothing but stir up trouble. It's like the people who scream 'racism' just because someone opposes something proposed by Obama... Utterly ridiculous.

No one gave reasons for their use of the word bigot in this context, not one person, they just shouted bigot from the rooftops and scuttled on.

Now, back in reality, there have been numerous examples of why most of the arguments put forward as reasons why a new mosque should not be built in this instance are based entirely in bigotry, specifically that building this mosque is tasteless and insensitive to the victims and families of victims of 9/11.

One person has put forward some non-bigoted reasons not to build the mosque, but they are not the ones being used by anyone, least of all you and that is because these reasons rely on the person putting them forward on having detailed knowledge of the area of the proposed build and the infrastructural impact such a building might have - all these things are properly addressed in planning meetings so for the purpose of the arguments on VJ are pretty much moot.

Being able to identify with the pain and suffering of victims and families of victims is not a justifiable argument as to why a mosque can't be built, neither would it be a justification for building it.

Edited August 20, 2010 by Madame Cleo

[Obama 2012 1,714]

How far away is acceptable?

I mean, you've made it clear that you're not opposed to it, per se, but can understand why some folks would be and have defended their right to be upset over it. So, how far is "OK" to have a mosque, and when would you STOP supporting their right to be upset over it?

As I said, I don't care where it goes. Makes no difference.

I'll support anyone's 'right' to their opinion, even if I think it's ridiculous. Doesn't mean I think their right or wrong. People get upset when a fly is killed. PETA throws a ####### fit about that sometimes lol. It's absurd, but I support their ridiculous opinion.

[HAL 9000 96]

I mistyped righter instead of nighter. Yep... I be tired. And MC said scuttled. I think she's a bigot. End of line.

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

I mistyped righter instead of nighter. Yep... I be tired. And MC said scuttled. I think she's a bigot. End of line.

the way it was originally typed, i thought maybe you got your monthly issue of playboy.

[HappyKnappy 30]

I wouldn't place the entire blame on the folk labeled as bigots, they have deep rooted views that come from the times when there was little to no diversity. It's funny though, because when told that their country is a land of immigrants, they say that it's a prehistoric view...

With telecommunications booming over the last 20 years, a lot of people have explored different cultures, customs and other factors of societies around the world. Today, the only reason not to be in the know, is lack of interest, because it is more comfy to don't give a #######.

It's way more easy to hate a whole bunch of people, then to stop and just hate the extremists in this case. Don't worry, that's the extremist view as well, so what makes you better than them? That you didn't destroy a part of their house? Think again. That you are not trying to force your views or way of life into them, just like they force theirs into ours? Nope...

By this reasoning, the terrorists have won, I think it would be way more American (note that there's a difference between American and redneck) to say, ok, you screwed us over, but guess what? It doesn't change who we are or what we stand for. Just sayin'

[HAL 9000 96]

the way it was originally typed, i thought maybe you got your monthly issue of playboy.

I wish that's what all-nighters were for nowadays. Sigh.

Then again, I am happily married...

I wouldn't place the entire blame on the folk labeled as bigots, they have deep rooted views that come from the times when there was little to no diversity. It's funny though, because when told that their country is a land of immigrants, they say that it's a prehistoric view...

With telecommunications booming over the last 20 years, a lot of people have explored different cultures, customs and other factors of societies around the world. Today, the only reason not to be in the know, is lack of interest, because it is more comfy to don't give a #######.

It's way more easy to hate a whole bunch of people, then to stop and just hate the extremists in this case. Don't worry, that's the extremist view as well, so what makes you better than them? That you didn't destroy a part of their house? Think again. That you are not trying to force your views or way of life into them, just like they force theirs into ours? Nope...

By this reasoning, the terrorists have won, I think it would be way more American (note that there's a difference between American and redneck) to say, ok, you screwed us over, but guess what? It doesn't change who we are or what we stand for. Just sayin'

I like this post,. +1

Intolerance of intolerant people is good IMO.

Intolerance by itself is not so good.

[slim 1,525]

I'll support anyone's 'right' to their opinion, even if I think it's ridiculous. Doesn't mean I think their right or wrong.

So your stance on this is strictly "they have the right to their opinion" without regard to anything else, even the mosque?

[Welshcookie 17]

By this reasoning, the terrorists have won, I think it would be way more American (note that there's a difference between American and redneck) to say, ok, you screwed us over, but guess what? It doesn't change who we are or what we stand for. Just sayin'

That's an excellent point of view

[slim 1,525]

That's an excellent point of view

We tried that with the flags commercial.

(Cut to scene of houses on a street.) "On Sep. 11th, terrorists tried to change America.... they did." (Same houses all with flags.)