NationStates Jolt Archive

I dont have to read this forum for very long to realise the amount of bigotry in these threads I really hope none of you get into positions of influence otherwise the US might become worse than it alreADY IS.

What am I talking about? Ironically not the people who come on here and say they hate gays or abortion or evolution or whatever it is, they take second place, because at least they have the guts to express an unpopular view even if they go about it in the wrong way (minor bigots). I am talking about the people who attack them. The real bigots in this forum are the people who want everyone to believe the same tolerant view that they do: that everyone 'should be tolerant of everything'. This view when when enforced means that these people become the worst bigots because they cant stand it when someone doesnt accept something, in fact they are INTOLERANT of someone elses intolerance. This is both a contradiction and it frames them as a hypocrite.

If someone expresses say an anti gay view then feel free to use logical reasoning against it. Calling that person a bigot or old fashioned or whatever is assuming you are right and everyone agress with you when in fact you might not be, (I am not taking sides I am merely using this as an example). The real bigot is the person that cannot tolerate someones intolerant view. At least the anti-gay person is consistent.

It's pretty easy to be consistent when barking "homosexuality bad! vagina made for penis!"

This is exactly why liberals should be banned.

It's a kind of bigotry which will exist forever, luckily there seems to be a trend in which people are starting to talk more about the bigotry than the actually issues that cause the bigotry.

Some could even consider that you are making a bigoted attack on those who don't tolerate others.

How can we have discussion if everyone agrees with each other? We need the negative replies.

Come on, we should be tolerant of everyone in the world..except Bush. Screw Bush :mp5:

New Fuglies I am not taking sides here I will say however that everyone should be consistent, its not hard, unless you think that everyone except intolerant people should be tolerated. Its human that people disagree so why not just live with it, respect other people and their views whilst accepting that they may not accept your view.

Give me a positive effect and a legitimate excuse for anti-homosexuality, racism, bible-thumping and that kind of shit, 'cause I don't see any.

New Fuglies I am not taking sides here I will say however that everyone should be consistent, its not hard, unless you think that everyone except intolerant people should be tolerated. Its human that people disagree so why not just live with it, respect other people and their views whilst accepting that they may not accept your view.

The problem being when their view is logically disproved as false, and instead of accepting that, they decide that it's time to start insulting and defaming you, maybe moving up to the threat stage later. Disagreements would be great if everybody was rational, but we're not, so we've got problems.

Thats your view Failureland, a view you are legitamately entitled to rationally argue, and one I am not taking sides with or arguing against. However to be intolerant of say an anti gay view is to contradict ones own view that everyones views should be tolerant. Nobody can have it both ways.

If someone expresses say an anti gay view then feel free to use logical reasoning against it. Calling that person a bigot or old fashioned or whatever is assuming you are right and everyone agress with you when in fact you might not be, (I am not taking sides I am merely using this as an example). The real bigot is the person that cannot tolerate someones intolerant view. At least the anti-gay person is consistent.

Fully in agreement - in principle. However, you may have noticed that most of the people that are being attacked ignore the logical reasoning and just post the same dogma over and over again without ever backing it up or bothering to check the other sides evidence.

In such a case the term 'bigot' is fully justified IMO.

First time I ever heard of wanting people to be tolerant of other people's culture/religion/sex etc as bigotry. I must say I greatly disagree with that, but then again I don't yell at people for not being tolerant because I know people won't change their opinion, regardless of whatever facts/opinions say otherwise. Not a single person will ever truely "convert".

Neo Anarchist, sometimes a view is logically disproved although I would say its rare. Homosexuality for example is far from something which you can 'prove' or 'disprove'. Nonetheless when anyone stoops to flaming whether they be anti-gay or anti-'people who are anti-gay' that is when we have the worst kind of bigotry as pointed out above.

Alma I agree with your statement too, dogma is something that even atheists can have and something that isnt backed up with logic or facts is dangerous. They are still entitled to hold that view though even if it is intolerant. Remember the people who listen to your arguments are people who read the thread not your opponent, that is always why its worth being logical and respectful.

EDIT: stabatha its not the tolerance I think is bigotry, its the hypocracy you cant be intolerant of someone who is intolerant without being a hypocrite if you claim to be tolerant of everyone.

Neo Anarchist, sometimes a view is logically disproved although I would say its rare. Homosexuality for example is far from something which you can 'prove' or 'disprove'. Nonetheless when anyone stoops to flaming whether they be anti-gay or anti-'people who are anti-gay' that is when we have the worst kind of bigotry as pointed out above.

I didn't actually mean their viewpoint being disproved, I should have been clearer in my post. What I meant is sometimes they use an irrational argument which is then pointed out to them, at which point you *obviously* don't know a thing about logic, regardless of whether or not you did beforehand.

I didn't actually mean their viewpoint being disproved, I should have been clearer in my post. What I meant is sometimes they use an irrational argument which is then pointed out to them, at which point you *obviously* don't know a thing about logic, regardless of whether or not you did beforehand.

Yes I agree, this applies to everyone as its dependant on someone being stupid rather than having a particular view.

This is a very difficult subject to address. You're very brave for attempting to take it on. However, without the proper precautions, this topic can degenerate quickly. I admit that I don't see that you've made those precautions. You seem to be condemning those who condemn others. You've done it more politely, but this really appears to be the root of your argument. Would you please address this?

Which would YOU rather have?

-Bigots who aren't tolerent of of anybody not like them, period
or
-Bigots who are tolerent of anybody that's not overly intolerant


I'd go with the later. At least they listen to reason most of the time. The former doesn't listen to reason at any time, except in VERY rare cases.

Well said Bannana land, I had a run in today with a newbie,

he was all for love and tolerance etc, but I disagreed with him about gay

marriages etc rah rah, suddenly all his tolerance and understanding vanished,

and was replaced by pure venom and nasty PC, hello, heres the the real

person I though.

He is the real bigot, and a hypocrite like you said.

The blame game is getting boring on both sides of this.

I agree that irrational thought can be a detriment to the quality of the forums. After all, this should be a place of sophisticated and healthy debate.
I also agree that there are some who would apparently rather not accept the fact and instead turn to malice and temper tantrums.

Still, it seems unlikely that one thread will change their existence or behavior. Newbies and flamers have always been a part of forum life; it's human nature to express anger towards those with whom you disagree. It's just our good fortune that a majority seems to prefer to express it with rational and logical argument.

Which would YOU rather have?

-Bigots who aren't tolerent of of anybody not like them, period
or
-Bigots who are tolerent of anybody that's not overly intolerant


I'd go with the later. At least they listen to reason most of the time. The former doesn't listen to reason at any time, except in VERY rare cases.

Tolerant of anyone who isn't intolerant? Wouldn't it make that tolerant person intolerant, hence them hating themselves?

This thread is supposed to be Ironic, isn't it?

Tolerant of anyone who isn't intolerant? Wouldn't it make that tolerant person intolerant, hence them hating themselves?
Note his/her use of the word overly ;)

I dont have to read this forum for very long to realise the amount of bigotry in these threads I really hope none of you get into positions of influence otherwise the US might become worse than it alreADY IS.

What am I talking about? Ironically not the people who come on here and say they hate gays or abortion or evolution or whatever it is, they take second place, because at least they have the guts to express an unpopular view even if they go about it in the wrong way (minor bigots). I am talking about the people who attack them. The real bigots in this forum are the people who want everyone to believe the same tolerant view that they do: that everyone 'should be tolerant of everything'. This view when when enforced means that these people become the worst bigots because they cant stand it when someone doesnt accept something, in fact they are INTOLERANT of someone elses intolerance. This is both a contradiction and it frames them as a hypocrite.

If someone expresses say an anti gay view then feel free to use logical reasoning against it. Calling that person a bigot or old fashioned or whatever is assuming you are right and everyone agress with you when in fact you might not be, (I am not taking sides I am merely using this as an example). The real bigot is the person that cannot tolerate someones intolerant view. At least the anti-gay person is consistent.


While I think I agree with what you are saying you do say it in a rather … how we say unusual way


Specially referring to things such as anti-gay as “minor” bigotry rather then the “real bigotry” of those opposed to them.

What I think you are trying to address is the hypocrisy of their intolerance rather then bigotry …
Bigotry is the preference of your group to others … while those others you speak of are more intolerant (which makes them hypocritical if they personally preach tolerance … though I wouldn’t assume their views on tolerance unless they clearly state it)

Intolerance and bigotry do go hand in hand but they are not interchangeable

Well said Bannana land, I had a run in today with a newbie,

he was all for love and tolerance etc, but I disagreed with him about gay

marriages etc rah rah, suddenly all his tolerance and understanding vanished,

and was replaced by pure venom and nasty PC, hello, heres the the real

person I though.

He is the real bigot, and a hypocrite like you said.

Well, you weren't exactly friendly were you? Also, I may have missed a couple of posts when I had a look at the thread, but he didn't seem all that venemous.

Depending on which thread is being referred to, the venom seems to be coming from Termie...

He insisted that he doesn't think that homosexuals are inferior while he was saying stuff like: "Now your really making me sick, you guys have got some nerve, even

thinking you have a right to get angry."


Hmmm...

*trying to collect myself after weeping uncontrollably for the poor intolerant people*

yeah damn those people who get so passionate about the freedom of others that they flame those who would suggest that they should have none of the common civil rights.

who do they think they are wanting women, gays, blacks, moslems, poor, jews, or ANYONE to have the full protection of the law?? why should they get so upset at the suggestion that some human being does not deserve the same consideration as all the rest?

WE MUST NOT TOLERATE THIS KIND OF INTOLERANCE. we MUST allow the bigots to spread their intolerance! we MUST give them the same respect we give those who want tolerance. it shouldnt MATTER that they spread hate!

CONSISTANCY MUST BE MORE IMPORTANT THAN PEOPLE!! give up your illogical stance and let the flow of bigotry go unchallenged. give them the respect they deserve for their hateful notions. treat their lies as if they could possibly be true no matter how many time you show them to be lies. why should you get tired of debunking the same crap over and over again if THEY are still willing to put it out there???

*overcome with weeping again*

I dont have to read this forum for very long to realise the amount of bigotry in these threads I really hope none of you get into positions of influence otherwise the US might become worse than it alreADY IS.

What am I talking about? Ironically not the people who come on here and say they hate gays or abortion or evolution or whatever it is, they take second place, because at least they have the guts to express an unpopular view even if they go about it in the wrong way (minor bigots). I am talking about the people who attack them. The real bigots in this forum are the people who want everyone to believe the same tolerant view that they do: that everyone 'should be tolerant of everything'. This view when when enforced means that these people become the worst bigots because they cant stand it when someone doesnt accept something, in fact they are INTOLERANT of someone elses intolerance. This is both a contradiction and it frames them as a hypocrite.

If someone expresses say an anti gay view then feel free to use logical reasoning against it. Calling that person a bigot or old fashioned or whatever is assuming you are right and everyone agress with you when in fact you might not be, (I am not taking sides I am merely using this as an example). The real bigot is the person that cannot tolerate someones intolerant view. At least the anti-gay person is consistent.
Interesting viewpoint, and one with which I happen to agree ... to a point. Being as tolerant as possible of of the beliefs of others is not only admirable, but necessary to the effective functioning of society. Where tolerance needs to cease is when the beliefs of others demean or degrade the rights, beliefs or status of other human beings.

It's ok to tolerate intolerance unless someone is hurt by the intolerant.

I think that's the best way of looking at intolerance, Eutrusca. Nice one.

Im a big biggot! I can't tolerate nazis, homophopic etc...

Interesting viewpoint, and one with which I happen to agree ... to a point. Being as tolerant as possible of of the beliefs of others is not only admirable, but necessary to the effective functioning of society. Where tolerance needs to cease is when the beliefs of others demean or degrade the rights, beliefs or status of other human beings.

It's ok to tolerate intolerance unless someone is hurt by the intolerant.

I don't think there is any more I add to that. It's my veiwpoint to the letter.

Ok guys I had to go out but now I am back. I for one am very pleased that this thread hasnt degenreated into flames and I commend the repliers of it. Let me address some questions asked of me. (Thanks for the compliment terminala)

Firstly to Pythagosauras asking me what the point of this thread was: Mainly it is to bring the hypocracy of the tolerant intolerant to peoples attention and to do it politely enough so that those who do it might change and those who see it might recognise it for what it is, it wasnt supposed to be overly condemming.

Secondly, upwarthrust said this: While I think I agree with what you are saying you do say it in a rather … how we say unusual way

Specially referring to things such as anti-gay as “minor” bigotry rather then the “real bigotry” of those opposed to them.

What I think you are trying to address is the hypocrisy of their intolerance rather then bigotry …
Bigotry is the preference of your group to others … while those others you speak of are more intolerant (which makes them hypocritical if they personally preach tolerance … though I wouldn’t assume their views on tolerance unless they clearly state it)

Intolerance and bigotry do go hand in hand but they are not interchangeable

You said this very well upwardthrust and perhaps clarified something i was trying to say about the hypocracy of intolerance, that is exactly what I meant when I was talking about minor bigotry. Having said this I still believe that the biggest bigots in this forum are the ones that assume that their viewpoint of equal tolerance for all is better than those who think that some views are not tollerable, (such as homosexuality). This touches upon something brought up by someone else so please read on:

Ashmoria and Eutrusca brought up interesting points as well. Eutrusca said we should tolerate everything as long as it doesnt hurt someone. A quote from ashmoria: who do they think they are wanting women, gays, blacks, moslems, poor, jews, or ANYONE to have the full protection of the law?? why should they get so upset at the suggestion that some human being does not deserve the same consideration as all the rest?

WE MUST NOT TOLERATE THIS KIND OF INTOLERANCE.

I feel assumptions are again being made here. This very game teaches us that too much freedom is anarchy and that although law and order restricts what we can do greatly it in actual fact frees us on a deeper level. One way of working out what should be legislated against to keep order in society, is to outlaw anything that hurts someone. We ban murder because it hurts people thats obvious. We allow people the freedom to choose where they want to live. Where do we draw the line though? How do we know what hurts people? How do we know that abortion or homosexuality arent doing psychological or biological long term damage? (I am not taking a view I am simply demonstrating that the hurts people argument has grey areas). If you believe in God then you look to God as the ultimate source of what is good and bad and therefore we can create laws around that. If you believe in the hurting people line then that is your method of deciding what to tolerate, after all none of us would tolerate a murderer right? If you have another value system one uses that to work it out.

What is the conclusion of this? Our idea of what we tolerate comes from the system of good/bad or hurts/doesnt hurt or whatever you want to call it and when we attack each other fundamentally we attack these systems and that is why so much flaming goes on raw nerves and all that. My concern was that those who tolerate almost everything, dont tolerate those who would draw the line of where the law should stop us hurting ourself in a different place, in a place that would restrict our freedoms further, (although not by a great deal in the grand scheme of things). They make out that the looser the law is the better and everyone who argues for its tightening is somehow against freedom.

This is wrong. Everyone should be free to argue where they think that line needs to be drawn and that includes an issue such as homosexuality. Just because someone is more or less strict doesnt make them the spawn of satan/a neo nazi/evil liberal. This is an area as mentioned in my first thread which I believe those who are intolerant of the intolerant are the most hypocritical and behave the most intolerantly.

If someone espouses bigotry, it seems logical to me to call them a bigot. For instance:

"I believe that white people are inherently evil and inferior, that heterosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry, and that religion should be banned."

The above statement is bigoted. The speaker is a bigot. Voicing that fact doesn't make me a bigot, any more than saying "Hitler was a murderer" makes me a bigot. So how would you respond to the above bigoted quote?

"Well, I disagree with your views, but I respect them and acknowledge their validity. Thank you for your valuable contribution to the debate. You are clearly not a bigot".

Rubbish. I'll cheerfully concede your right to hold whatever opinions you find appropriate, however bizarre I might find them. At the same time, I certainly reserve my right to dismiss them as rabid and intellectually bankrupt bigotry if, in fact, that is what they are. This doesn't require any sort of intolerance on my part; I merely need to understand the definition of those words.

Has anyone seen that one episode of South Park called "the Death Camp of Tolerance" or something? Oh man, that looks hillarious! I want to see that one so bad...

You are right, my comment was that someone who doesnt tolerate someone elses view that homosexuality is wrong or marriage should be banned is also a bigot. I think I am also right in saying that it helps no one to start throwing the term around as an insult.

You are right, my comment was that someone who doesnt tolerate someone elses view that homosexuality is wrong or marriage should be banned is also a bigot.
That would depend on how you define 'tolerate'. If you say that "gay marriages should be banned because gays are evil scum" then I'll point out your bigotry, but I won't punch you in the face.

Speaking only for myself: I don't greatly care what your opinions are. If you say that homosexuality is wrong I might try to find out why (depending on what kind of mood I'm in at the time). If you say "because my God has judged it wrong" then I'll quite happily leave it at that. If you come out with pseudo-logic like "It's unnatural" then I might (if I'm feeling particularly masochistic) try to demonstrate the holes in your reasoning, or I might just nod and leave it at that.

If you say that gay marriages should be banned I'll attempt to find out why. If, as usual, your reason is "Because my God has judged it wrong" or "Because I don't like it" I'll attempt to explain why such viewpoints do not make a solid basis for legislation. If your reason is "because gays are evil scum" then we'll be back at that 'bigot' thing.

I think I am also right in saying that it helps no one to start throwing the term around as an insult.
I think I can agree with that, but it's sometimes useful to point it out for the benefit of those who haven't been paying attention.

The blame game is getting boring on both sides of this.

Theres no blame game, just serious disagreements.

Well, you weren't exactly friendly were you? Also, I may have missed a couple of posts when I had a look at the thread, but he didn't seem all that venemous.

I was extremely friendly in the beginning, as I am to everyone, he then

turned on me like a acobra, and showed he really was a freak, something I

was telling him because of his sexual condition, that he wasnt, but after he

showed how rotten his heart was, I said yes, you are a freak.

And if you missed all the poisonous things he said to me, take your selective

viewing glasses off, and look again.

So ... what you're saying here is that we should hear people screaming, "BURN ALL NIGGERS!!! JEWS ARE TEH SUCK!!!" and applaud them for expressing their views and "pander" to them in the name of tolerance?

Sorry ... that line of thinking is why the Libertarians will never be in power.

KKK --> :mad: :sniper: <--- ME

If that means I'm a bigot, good. I'll buy a T-shirt to prove it.

Well, the easy solution to hipocrasy in such settings is to just say "I believe that I am right, and whatever I say is best".

As for Bigotry, that's a very bad statement anyway. Can anyone cearly define a "Bigot"? And if so, can you do it without proving that you yourself are one, or without showing that all humans are bigots?

Calling someone a bigot is merely a shorter way of saying you hate what they believe because it goes against what you believe.

An example, people who hate Hitler. Whay do they really know? Do they know the good he did? Do they know that Himmler was really the man behind all the "evil" that Hitler supposidly did, and that Himmler kept it hidden from Hitler as much as possible? Do they know that Hitler's views were not only commonplace, but accecpted, and backed by most other nations? Do they know that WW2 was NOT fought to free the Jews, because no one knew of the concentration camps until 1945?
Anyone is free to argue that, and I can call them a Bigot. Just as anyone is free to call me a Bigot for saying "Hitler was a great man."
But what weight does the term carry?
What does it really mean?
And does it even make sense?

http://dictionary.reference.com defines "bigot" thusly: One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

So, on some level, we are all bigoted, because every human has an inherent need to be right. However, many (not necessarily most, but not necessarily less than most) people do not have a strong enough urge towards bigotry to actually be labeled "bigots."

Is that acceptable, Dostanuot Loj?

An example, people who hate Hitler. Whay do they really know? Do they know the good he did? Do they know that Himmler was really the man behind all the "evil" that Hitler supposidly did, and that Himmler kept it hidden from Hitler as much as possible? Do they know that Hitler's views were not only commonplace, but accecpted, and backed by most other nations? Do they know that WW2 was NOT fought to free the Jews, because no one knew of the concentration camps until 1945?
Anyone is free to argue that, and I can call them a Bigot. Just as anyone is free to call me a Bigot for saying "Hitler was a great man."
But what weight does the term carry?
What does it really mean?
And does it even make sense?

Hate to break it to you, but Hitler was well aware of the final solution, and

approved the usage of Zyklon B to gas them faster, than carbon monide

himself, dont kid yourself, he knew all about the Jewish 'problem'.

Hitler was an arsehole.

Also it was well known the Germans were decimating the Jews and other

peoples before 45, as some survivors made it back early in the war, to bring

the news, particularly the one horrible acount of a Polish Jewess, who was

rounded up and machine gunned in Russia, she threw herself forward as the

bullets fired and feigned death on the bloody warm pile of corpses below her.

All day more bodies fell on top of her, she said it was like being in a sea of

moving warm bloody bodies, slowly crushing each other with their weight.

At night time she crawled out and escaped back to England, and told of what

happenned, she was the only known survivor that day from 35,000 people

machine gunned to death.

Your great hero Hitler, knew about the mass shootings too.

Hate to break it to you, but Hitler was well aware of the final solution, and

approved the usage of Zyklon B to gas them faster, than carbon monide

himself, dont kid yourself, he knew all about the Jewish 'problem'.

Hitler was an arsehole.


Good, now prove that he was aware of it.
Anyone can forge someone elses signature, and anyone can claim that a signature of someone on a document shows they were aware of that.

And this "Jewish Problem" that you speak of, was a very prevaliant idea from the late 1700's until the end of the second world war. So of course he did, and he embraced it, so did everyone else, European and North American.

Northern Trombonium: Eh, kinda. It still says that everyone is bigoted though. Via your own analysis at the end.

Not paying much attention to this thread at all. It just sounds like a lot of "I know you are but what am I?" mentality. Now with that said, and the open nature of the definition of bigot I am a bit curious why it has become a bilaterally appropriate word for either side, or thrown back defensively, when discussing homosexuality of all things. The con side in this case espouses intolerance as justified while the pro side seeks tolerance for what the con side does not. At times it may go beyond that to full blown intolerance of a POV but in this case that pales in comparison to the history of intolerance towards homosexuals and tolerance for intolerance is self-defeating.

Now with that out of the way, I am just as curious why this "bigot not me, bigot be you" defense isn't utilised in all instances of differing thought. Following the logic I've seen here, Adolph Hitler for example might correctly call a Jew or an Allied leader a bigot but is it really appropriate? What makes it appropriate in the instance discussed in this thread?

Politics?

Desensitivity?

Arrogance?

Now with that out of the way, I am just as curious why this "bigot not me, bigot be you" defense isn't utilised in all instances of differing thought. Following the logic I've seen here, Adolph Hitler for example might correctly call a Jew or an Allied leader a bigot but is it really appropriate? What makes it appropriate in the instance discussed in this thread?



The only think that would make it appropriate is if he won the war.
As such, all that makes it appropriate is that we won the war.

History is written by the victor, and thus is not accurate.

What makes the term "Bigot" appropriate is that the side who uses it usually thinks they are the victor. This being the case on philosophical discussions online, because you can't actually "win" such discussions on the internet.

The only think that would make it appropriate is if he won the war.
As such, all that makes it appropriate is that we won the war.

History is written by the victor, and thus is not accurate.

What makes the term "Bigot" appropriate is that the side who uses it usually thinks they are the victor. This being the case on philosophical discussions online, because you can't actually "win" such discussions on the internet.

Next thing they will be calling people fundaloonies. :D

Next thing they will be calling people fundaloonies. :D


Lol, yep. Insults and stuff always change.

How often is Wench used anymore?
Hell, we had a whole list of words that ar never used anymore that used to be insults written up in my Human Communication class.


Also it was well known the Germans were decimating the Jews and other

peoples before 45, as some survivors made it back early in the war, to bring

the news, particularly the one horrible acount of a Polish Jewess, who was

rounded up and machine gunned in Russia, she threw herself forward as the

bullets fired and feigned death on the bloody warm pile of corpses below her.

All day more bodies fell on top of her, she said it was like being in a sea of

moving warm bloody bodies, slowly crushing each other with their weight.

At night time she crawled out and escaped back to England, and told of what

happenned, she was the only known survivor that day from 35,000 people

machine gunned to death.

Good, now provide evidence.
Because I've heard that rumor before.

Your great hero Hitler, knew about the mass shootings too.
Please read the word "Example" I used.
Nowhere do I claim Hitler is my "Great hero". This was an uncalled for attack on my personal being. "Nice debate tactic".

Lol, yep. Insults and stuff always change.

How often is Wench used anymore?
Hell, we had a whole list of words that ar never used anymore that used to be insults written up in my Human Communication class.
Strangely enough, Wench is the favorite insult of one of my sisters. The other sister usually responds with "your mom."

I find this thread particularly amusing.

Bigots accusing bigots and no one quite getting it right.

It is the accusations against each that seem out of place, not your opinion of a idea.

I like debating a variety of topics. Being called a (fill in blank) for having an idea seems harse and, in my opinion, uncalled for.

Slender Goddess

I dont have to read this forum for very long to realise the amount of bigotry in these threads I really hope none of you get into positions of influence otherwise the US might become worse than it alreADY IS.

What am I talking about? Ironically not the people who come on here and say they hate gays or abortion or evolution or whatever it is, they take second place, because at least they have the guts to express an unpopular view even if they go about it in the wrong way (minor bigots). I am talking about the people who attack them. The real bigots in this forum are the people who want everyone to believe the same tolerant view that they do: that everyone 'should be tolerant of everything'. This view when when enforced means that these people become the worst bigots because they cant stand it when someone doesnt accept something, in fact they are INTOLERANT of someone elses intolerance. This is both a contradiction and it frames them as a hypocrite.

If someone expresses say an anti gay view then feel free to use logical reasoning against it. Calling that person a bigot or old fashioned or whatever is assuming you are right and everyone agress with you when in fact you might not be, (I am not taking sides I am merely using this as an example). The real bigot is the person that cannot tolerate someones intolerant view. At least the anti-gay person is consistent.
I only consider myself tolerant until it comes to people being intolerant of others. I don't think it's a contradiction, just a restriction to my tolerance. I would never ask someone to tolerate Nazis and religious Fundamentalists either. Tolerance has its bounds, but its better than being knowingly intolerant of someone else.

=Dostanuot Loj]
Good, now provide evidence.
http:www.kimel.net/hitjew.html
http://stevenlehrer.com/Hitler_threat.htm
http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/reviewstr16.htm


Because I've heard that rumor before.

Its not a rumour, and if you think it is, your either seriously deluded, or

just covering up what you know is true.




Please read the word "Example" I used.
Nowhere do I claim Hitler is my "Great hero". This was an uncalled for attack on my personal being. "Nice debate tactic".

Well, I guess the great man and great leader comments must have given me

the wrong immpression, sorry.

I mean, if it's really all that bad, it must be that many people can see them, right?

Yes, either that or their blind.

http:www.kimel.net/hitjew.html
http://stevenlehrer.com/Hitler_threat.htm
http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/reviewstr16.htm




Its not a rumour, and if you think it is, your either seriously deluded, or

just covering up what you know is true.






Well, I guess the great man and great leader comments must have given me

the wrong immpression, sorry.


Your links prove one thing. That what I said earlier is true.
And this "Jewish Problem" that you speak of, was a very prevaliant idea from the late 1700's until the end of the second world war. So of course he did, and he embraced it, so did everyone else, European and North American.

As well, I remind you that people edited, changed, and added in or removed what they liked from Mien Kampf before publishing. This again in no way means every word there is his.

As for the rumor. I suggest before you decide to start callig me deluded, you provide proof.
And while you're at that, provide proof that people listened to this woman at that.
I can go out spewing BS about the mass murder of Jews in some random country, what makes it true? And if I was telling the truth, who's going to believe me? Just because someone says it, doesn't make it true.

Which brings me to my final point on Hitler that I want to make, because this is getting too off-topic.
How do you know what Hitler believed if you never asked him?
You don't. No one does except those who talked to him. Many of whom were conviently executed by the Allies.

[QUOTE=Dostanuot Loj]Your links prove one thing. That what I said earlier is true.

They dont actually, how can you really believe Hitler had nothing to do with

the six million dead Jews?

Come on.

As well, I remind you that people edited, changed, and added in or removed what they liked from Mien Kampf before publishing. This again in no way means every word there is his.

Prove it.

And while you're at that, provide proof that people listened to this woman at that.


Her account was documented in England.


I can go out spewing BS about the mass murder of Jews in some random country, what makes it true? And if I was telling the truth, who's going to believe me? Just because someone says it, doesn't make it true.

So all the ah skeletons dug up by the Russians in these mass graves, were

made up as well?

Heaps of photos too.

How do you know what Hitler believed if you never asked him?
You don't. No one does except those who talked to him. Many of whom were conviently executed by the Allies.

Well what do you think he believed?

[QUOTE]

They dont actually, how can you really believe Hitler had nothing to do with

the six million dead Jews?

Come on.



Prove it.




Her account was documented in England.




So all the ah skeletons dug up by the Russians in these mass graves, were

made up as well?

Heaps of photos too.



Well what do you think he believed?


You miss the point entirely of that last comment.
I'll say it blatantly.
The allies did not go to war to free the Jews. Nor did they know about what was happening to the Jews until the last few months of the war, at best.

Everything else, either prove your side, or quit arguing it. Quite frankly, I don't at all care to change your mind, nor do I care to continue this Hitler debate in a topic that is not about him.
I used an example to point out that bigot is entirely subjective, and thus has no real meaning.
I'm not going to sit here and "debate" with the ignorant over something completely unrelated to wat I was saying any longer.

Yes, either that or their blind.

I still haven't seen anybody answer my challenge to show examples...