Mike

>>>He is like most liberals - he sees something he does not like and wants to subject the majority to his will, thereby screwing over the rights of others.
>>Well, the only word I see there that could in anyway be called inflammatory would be the word 'screwed', which is inappropriate I suppose.
>
>Its not the words that are bigotory. Its how they're put together.

Oh? And here I thought it was the close-mindedness behind those words.


>
>>Other than that I don't see how you can label him 'bigot' because he asserts that he views one group (liberals - how he defines this group remains to be seen I suppose) as (in my words) tyring to assert their views over that of others, but with a method that is contrary to their stated principles.
>
>He said "most liberals try to screw other people out of their rights because they disagree". If he had said:
>
>"most Minnesotans try to screw other people out of their rights because they disagree"
>"most black people try to screw other people out of their rights because they disagree"
>"most homosexuals try to screw other people out of their rights because they disagree"
>
>Would you consider any of that bigotry?

Nope. Not if he could back that up with fatcts or a rational example of why he made the assertion.

>
>>IOW, have you injected your emotions into John's words?
>
>I don't think I have. And if you'll notice, John did not argue the point that he feels a prejudice towards liberals. Which is honest of him.

Well, I don't thinkI'll comment about John's positions as he's quite capable of responding for himself. Perhaps his opining, which you assert is prejudiced, is actually based upon a good solid basis in fact.

>
>>I don't see how I could be called a bigot if I asserted that I think you want to impose your goals (the antithesis of 'something he does not like' - above) on others.
>
>You probably wouldn't be called a bigot if you did that. But if you asserted that I, and everyone else with blond hair, red cars, liberal tendencies, or any other irrelevant characteristic are out to cause you harm, you would be rightfully called a bigot.

Well, I don't classify folks that way. Positions (independent of individuals), like what is passing itself off as liberalism in today's world, is IMO a hugely bigoted and hyposricital position. Those who hold to that position may be sincere or cynical and I'd want to respond according to the individual. IOW, I can ascertain the difference between the two.

>
>>but other than John's generalizations about liberals which I have found to be mostly true
>
>To you are admitting your bigotry here, as well? Thats ok, I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that. Simply lets call it what it is, shall we?

*chuckle*

Another blind leap Mike?

No.. I'm asserting that John's generalizations about liberals is mostly to be found true as to the facts. If in your mind the truth equals bigotry, as it appears that you are asserting, then according to your mal-formed notions on what constitutes bigotry I'd be a bigot. From what you are asserting you're apparently just plain ignorant of some of the issues it seems.

>
>>IOW, what gives you the justification to label John a bigot because he thinks that in general liberals are hypocrites and self serving and wanting to impose their beliefs on the majority? That's his opinion and the last time I looked it wasn't a crime to have an opinon.
>
>Its also not a crime to be a racist. Its also not a crime to think that all Christians are intellectually superiour to Muslims. Bigotry is not a crime. I think you're barking up the wrong tree here.

Well, I suppose you're quite correct. You have every right to be deluded I suppose.

>
>>Well, you called John a nasty, emotion-laden name ('bigot')
>
>Says you. At one point in time, "Believer" was a nasty, emotion-laden name.

No. Said you. <g>

>
>>and I don't see where he's exhibiting much more than his opinion that liberals attempt to force their positions on others via inappropriate means.
>
>How is that not bigotry?

No. It's an expression of an opinion. It can be backed up by facts. I'm no bigot if I say that all the members of the Helland clans are thievs if, in fact, they all have rap sheets now am I? Liberalism, as it stand defined at this point in time is one of the most destructive philosophical positions I have ever seen. Everything it touches bloats into a federal entitlement program it seems.

Your ignorance of the facts doesn't make John a bigot any more than my ignorance of the general character of the Helland clan would make any assertion I might make would be correct or in error. What are the facts?

>
>> don't see much tolerance in what you're writing, so yes, I'd call you intolerant in this case.
>
>But did I say he was wrong because he was a right-winger? No. Did I say he was wrong because he was from Pennsilvania? No. I may have a low tolerance for John's point of view, but that does not mean I am intolerant of John, or those who share unrelated charateresitics.

So he's correct in his positions then? Are you saying you agree with him in them?

Why did you assert he was a bigot then?


>
>>Talk about a closed mind, and at such a young age.... Tsk tsk.. <g>
>
>I do not have an open mind to close mindedness. That is true.

So, because I hold to different opinions than you do ipso facto I have a closed mind? *chuckle*



>
>>In that case I do think that liberals are indeed bigots - to the degree they are intolerant of others.
>
>Thats pretty ironic.

Indeed you might, if you had a closed mind to the facts of the matter.


>
>>Gain the majority forst, then impose your will on everyone else and stop abusing the court processes.
>
>I have to become the crooked CEO of an oil company before that happens.

LOL.. Well, with your current demonstrated ability to rationalize I'd say you're on the right track.


>
>>Candidly, your ideas are about three generations old at this point. The problem you have is that you think they are new because you have them.
>

>Why you think this, I have no idea.

True enough.


Thanks Mike. Entertaining as always.