Intolerant People Who Call People "Bigots"

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Right or wrong I think for many it has nothing to do with hating on a religion but everything with not giving the extremist element what they would see as a victory.

Exactly. The Mosque must be built; if for no other reason than that we cannot allow a situation that the extremist element (Palin, Gingrich, Bachmann, Beck, et al) would book as a victory.

Edited August 20, 2010 by Mr. Big Dog

[Obama 2012 1,714]

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

Everyone is entitled to their opinion and is entitled to express thier views.

That's why I get irritated with people who want to squelch alleged 'hate speech' or want to silence people with differing views and opinions. The constitution protects those things, whether people like them or not. Extreme leftists and extreme RWNs are guilty of trying to silence people and their opinions. As I've said before, yuo have the right to offend and you have the right to be offended, but you have no right not to be offended outside the privacy of your own home. If someone wants to stand on a corner with a sign that says, "I hate Whitey" then so be it. I'll stand up for them any day of the week. Why? Not because I support their 'view' but because I support their right to hold that view.

My only point with this thread is that it's ridiculous to call one a bit/intolerant when you are doing the exact same thing and it's also ridiculous to do it without actually countering the argument.

[slim 1,525]

the extremist element (Palin, Gingrich, Bachmann, Beck, et al)

Those are extremists?

[Ban Hammer 13,343]

Those are extremists?

i guess if someone disagrees with your viewpoint, they are an extremist.

[HAL 9000 96]

Full fledge political 'debate' is the next step here.

[^_^ 5,021]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion and is entitled to express thier views.

Yes, but you have no right to not have your views criticized, attacked or ridiculed. You have no right to be taken seriously.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Yes, but you have no right to not have your views criticized, attacked or ridiculed. You have no right to be taken seriously.

If the criticism and ridicule is simply name-calling though, it only makes the person doing the name-calling look like the fool.

As I said, you destroy people on substance, not name-calling because you disagree with them.

[Danno 1,228]

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?

Thats like asking: how far away does on have to be from Gettysburg or Arlington Cemetery to build a wal-mart?

Typically public opinion dictates.... if no one cares... these things get built.

Ever try to build (or even remodel) something in an HISTORIC DISTRICT?

SOmeone actually decided at what point an area was no longer "historic" and blue vinyl siding can be used.

Edited August 20, 2010 by Danno

[HAL 9000 96]

If the criticism and ridicule is simply name-calling though, it only makes the person doing the name-calling look like the fool.

As I said, you destroy people on substance, not name-calling because you disagree with them.

I disagree. Sometimes when the name-calling is representative of the obvious context they're addressing, its quite funny reading the nilly-willy responses that react to them, tangentialized, obfuscated, and vitriolic. Then suspensions come about.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

I disagree. Sometimes when the name-calling is representative of the obvious context they're addressing, its quite funny reading the nilly-willy responses that react to them, tangentialized, obfuscated, and vitriolic. Then suspensions come about.

Calling someone an idiot, racist, bigot, etc. is silly without pointing out the 'why' they are the way they are. You just end up looking silly. The thing you have to remember, for every person that want to call that person a bigot, there's a person that agrees with their views unless someone truly can prove the opposite.

The amusing thing on the Mosque here is that those calling others bigots are doing it under false pretenses even. If anything they should be calling people 'Xenophbes' instead. Even then it's pushing it if there's no apparent sense that someone is bothered by the religion overall.

[HAL 9000 96]

Calling someone an idiot, racist, bigot, etc. is silly without pointing out the 'why' they are the way they are. You just end up looking silly. The thing you have to remember, for every person that want to call that person a bigot, there's a person that agrees with their views unless someone truly can prove the opposite.

The amusing thing on the Mosque here is that those calling others bigots are doing it under false pretenses even. If anything they should be calling people 'Xenophbes' instead. Even then it's pushing it if there's no apparent sense that someone is bothered by the religion overall.

Oh there are plenty of explanations. By the time that label has been made, enough people have been left in awe at how utterly retrograde those targeted bigots (etc) have proven themselves to be.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Calling someone an idiot, racist, bigot, etc. is silly without pointing out the 'why' they are the way they are. You just end up looking silly. The thing you have to remember, for every person that want to call that person a bigot, there's a person that agrees with their views unless someone truly can prove the opposite.

Sometimes, the comment is so overtly racist that no explanation is needed. However, I recently got a suspension for calling someone an "ignorant racist" for posting a rumor as a fact, I even posted a link that conclusively refuted it. So I can only conclude that the explanation got me the suspension.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I'm not even seeing the argument here. If a person is arguing against the mosque because they can not tolerate islam being near the WTC site...isn't that by definition bigotry?

Now if it were on the site, I would personally be against it because I understand how people can be scarred by acts of violence and not be able to see things objectively. (Like imagine a Shinto Shrine being put ON the Arizona Memorial in Pearl Harbor)

So IMO, if someone is arguing against the mosque simply because they believe Islam is nothing but extremists in my book thats bigotry. And if they are arguing against it because of the 9/11 victims it may not be bigotry, but its pretty invalid given its blocks away.

(Sorry Paul, I've been away and I'm not really sure if you are arguing the former or latter?)

[^_^ 5,021]

I'm not even seeing the argument here. If a person is arguing against the mosque because they can not tolerate islam being near the WTC site...isn't that by definition bigotry?

...

So IMO, if someone is arguing against the mosque simply because they believe Islam is nothing but extremists in my book thats bigotry. And if they are arguing against it because of the 9/11 victims it may not be bigotry, but its pretty invalid given its blocks away.

So the opponents are either bigots or mental invalids. Sounds right.

[HAL 9000 96]

Its unfortunate when writing gets cherry picked to focus ONLY on one fraction of an argument that to my knowledge by what has been posted here against the Mosque location... is by definition in the realm of bigotry.