You keep repeating this, despite my saying over and over what it means to say an argument is bigoted. Let me say it again–for at least the fourth time in this thread:
A bigoted argument is an argument that falls without the assumption of inferiority of a specific class of people, when that assumption is unwarranted.
Now, you might disagree with that definition of what a bigoted argument is, and I invite you to explain why you think it’s a bad definition. But for you to keep ignoring it in favor of a definition (“the thing a bigot would say”) that simply renders the whole argument moot is a peculiar choice to make. Why not address this definition that I’ve offered repeatedly?
I misinterpreted you defining it this way. I read back and see that you did so - that’s my bad.
Then I would fall back on my previous assertion that you calling something bigoted is shorthand for assuming facts not in evidence. You could alternatively attack the argument noting that it fails unless there is an unwarranted assumption of inferiority of a specific class of people and illustrate how.
And I add that you are using a non-standard definition so unless you define your terms each time you use them, readers would get a different impression of what you are trying to say than you intend. That’s why it’s a bad definition.
The relevant definition of bigotry is the one offered by Wikipedia:
Note the “unfair” in the definition. That’s a key piece of it. “Dislikes” is, I think, a bit inexact: in every example of bigotry that I can think of, there’s a belief that the disliked class of people is inferior to oneself in some key way (moral, intellectual, sartorial, etc.)
A bigoted argument isn’t simply the sort of argument put forth by a bigot. It’s the sort of argument put forth based on bigotry. The “unfair” is a key element of a charge of bigotry, and it’s imminently debatable, as is the element of belief in the inferiority of the group.
Two examples:
I think meth addicts are people with poor judgment, and I do not think they should be allowed to drive buses.
In this example, I clearly think that meth addicts are inferior in a specific way (inferior judgment). If you think that this is an unwarranted assumption, you may level a charge of bigotry against my argument.
I think that teenagers are generally a creative bunch of people, and their school assignments should cater to their creativity.
In this example, you might think that my belief about teenagers is unwarranted, but in order to level the charge of bigotry against my argument, you’d need to show that it’s predicated on a belief that they’re inferior.
In neither example do you need to engage in mindreading. In neither example do you need to call me names. You may address a specific flaw in the argument, the flaw of bigotry, if you think it’s there.
This is not what’s commonly understood to be the connotation of the term “bigot”.
And I also don’t believe it’s what’s meant when people use it in threads. Because if it were it would be completely pointless. Obviously the entire crux of these discussion is whether the assumption is unwarranted.
So I think what people mean in these threads is the commonly used connotation of the term - that the bigot is movated by intolerance of people who are not like him - and not this irregular definition that you’ve come up with here.
Second, “bigoted” is shorthand for assuming facts not in evidence–but so is superstitious, or conspiracy-theoryish, or any of a number of other terms. It’s useful to have words that are shorthand for specific sorts of flaws in arguments, because the facts not in evidence in a bigoted argument are probably going to be different from the facts not in evidence in a superstitious argument.
I really, really don’t think it’s that non-standard. When someone calls an argument bigoted, do you really think they’re saying, “That’s the sort of argument made by a person intolerant of the opinions of others”? Or are they probably saying, “That argument presupposes a group is inferior to you, and it’s not”? I’d be curious to see examples from this board or elsewhere where an argument is called “bigoted,” and the speaker probably meant the former and not the latter.
Really? Does that mean you concede, for example, that all opposition to SSM is predicated on a belief that gay people are inferior to straight people? Because I’m pretty sure that not all the anti-SSM people will agree with you on that measure; for them, the crux is whether there’s any necessary assumption of inferiority. I can offer examples of those folks who disagree with you, if you need them.
I don’t know. But what you write here contradicts your repeated insistence that no armchair psychology or mindreading is required in arguing that others are bigoted. Here you’re saying that despite anti-SSM people disclaiming any assumption about gay inferiority, you’ve managed to figure out that this is really the underpinning of their position such that you feel the need to call them bigots on that basis.
So I assumed that in the case of gays your argument was that the status of “being unable to marry the person they love” was itself an inferior status and thus bigoted. If you really meant that you’ve figured out that these people really believe gays are themselves inferior, then the terminology I used wouldn’t apply, but you would be back in armchair psychologist position, as above.
Bottom line is that you seem to be acknowledging that in such cases your intention is to impugn your opponents by attributing to them motivations that they specifically disclaim, and in contrast to your other posts on the matter here. (Unless you’re agreeing that in the case of such people calling them bigots would be inappropriate, in which case I have no idea of what your point might be with all this.)
I can’t build an argument against tweakers driving buses unless I stipulate that tweakers exercise poor judgment. The question is, is it possible to construct an argument against SSM that is not built on the inferiority of gay people?
It’d be inappropriate, of course, for us to engage in that exercise here, and if you try to do it, I won’t follow course. But what you wrote appeared to be a concession that constructing such an argument was impossible. If that’s not what you’re saying, I misunderstood you when you wrote that “Obviously the entire crux of these discussion is whether the assumption is unwarranted.”
Edit: interestingly enough, the place where such a discussion WOULD be appropriate is exactly the place where Tom forbade that discussion, unless we dance around the subject through circumlocutions. That’s why his instruction should be rescinded.
I’m only going with your words, in this thread. If we grant the following two positions (consecutive sentences in post #77, but you’ve repeated both throughout the thread), that
[ol][li]A bigoted argument is an argument that falls without the assumption of inferiority of a specific class of people, when that assumption is unwarranted.[/li][li]There’s no psychology involved except the psychology involved in assuming people are using words in a standard fashion.[/ol][/li]Then it would follow that the only time the accusation is appropriate in your view is when the people accused are openly acknowleging the assumption of inferiority. This would make the accusation pointless.
If you’re now backing off the above assertions then what I wrote would not apply. I was taking you at your words here.
I’m thinking this isn’t serving a purpose any further. Tom and I have both expressed our positions and you two are just bickering. If you truly wish to debate the definition of ‘bigot’ you know where you can do so.
As long as you are not using the term as an insult to other posters, either directly or as shorthand to dismiss their position in a debate, argue the meaning of the word and its usage to your heart’s content.
(Efforts to expand that semantic debate to take swipes at persons will be frowned upon.)
The word “dismiss” is worrisome. As described above, I think it’s a perfectly valid way to argue against the validity of a position, and is no more dismissive than terms like “superstitious”. Are you suggesting that using the term to describe this specific sort of flaw in someone’s argument comprises an insult?
I recognize that the charge, as used most frequently, in the outside world and on this board, is as a condemnation for moral failures. I think it disingenuous to declare differently–otherwise, why the outrage by posters that they cannot hurl that accusation when they could just as easily point out the basic “misunderstanding.”
You’re just proving that tomndebb made the right call. You can already see where the next step of the thread would be if he hadn’t stepped in. It was an interesting and long-running thread on the legal developments of SSM, often as they happened. To have it devolve into the arguments going on in this thread would be a shame. It was a good effort by tomndebb to try to head this off.
If you’re now asking about whether it would be OK to start another thread on the issues you can see the thread would have been headed in, that’s another question.
Your use of “disingenuous” is far more of a personal accusation of moral failure that calling an argument “bigoted” is: you’re saying that I’m being dishonest. If you actually want to know why people think the word is a useful tool, you need merely ask–or better yet, read the thread, where its utility has been discussed exhaustively, and compared to other words.
There’s no consistency in what you’re saying at all, and ideally you’d get mod-noted for this personal slight.