Is there another kind? :rolleyes:
Why yes. It might have been a clever and/or creative one. It sure wasn’t. Understandable, since it apparently never occurred to you.
If someone is convinced they are completely rational and makes irrational generalizations about others…there is no way to convince them otherwise, is there? They would believe that the ones trying to convince them otherwise were actually the ones being irrational. I would think that YOU believe you are completely rational, yes? So if you make irrational generalizations, then there would be no way to convince you of anything otherwise, correct? The same goes for me, of course; I’m totally convinced of my rationality to a point.
By this I don’t mean that I think that I always behave rationally. I can recognize when I do not, and can reason as to why I did so (driven by hormonal urges, etc.) But the point is, rationality makes sense to those defining the rationale, that is, one’s on self.
Cogito ergo sum is all that I’m left with.
You’re over thinking it, I think.
How lite a Nazi must one be for it not to count as bigotry? There’s a natural continuum, of course, from fascism to whatever it’s opposite is.
Anyway, if you were capable of controlling your jerking knee, you’d see that my point wasn’t about Nazis, it was about specious substitution:
Poster A: I distrust <Group A> for the following reasons.
Poster B: <Group A> is just like <Group an audience is likely to view positively>. Hating <Group an audience is likely to view positively> is bigotry, therefore you are a bigot.
If Poster B instead chose <Group an audience is likely to view in a neutral or negative way>, I trust even a gibbering moron like yourself can see the impact would be blunted. What it comes down to is that by your cavalier use of the term, a bigot isn’t someone who operates on fear or hatred, but just someone who isn’t selective enough about who should be feared or hated.