Interesting. If he doesn’t agree to defer to you, do you dispute the idea that there’s only one correct side to the following debates:
-Quantum physics does not mean that Aztec shamans really could transform into jaguars.
-The earth is round.
-Vaccines do not cause autism.
-Elvis is dead.
Or do you agree with the statement you quoted after all?
This may be off-topic, I realize. I don’t think the thread is really about whether there’s just one correct side to these arguments. But I do think it’s about whether “bigoted” is a reasonable description of the specific flaw certain arguments have, and whether it should be allowed regardless of the hurt feelings people may experience when their arguments are identified as bigoted. If there’s such a thing as an objective flaw in an argument, then while there may not be one objectively correct view in an argument, there’s gotta be objectively incorrect views.
There is only one correct side in that debate, and it is
[ul][li]Being bigoted is not a flaw in an argument, because the only flaw in an argument that is relevant to a debate is that the argument is untrue.[/li][li]Therefore it should not be allowed, because it derails debate away from the only relevant question, which is “is it true?” [/ul][/li] :shrugs:
Two mods have already ruled against you. Take that as “reality” being pretty clear.
Tom has answered the question. He issued a narrowly-framed instruction confined to one thread to keep the discussion civil. He wasn’t making a sweeping pronouncement for all time. What he did was reasonable and in keeping with our usual procedure. Obviously you disagree, LHoD. Doesn’t seem like there’s much else to say.
Probably true. At this point, I’m mostly just responding to others. I would like to see Tom work on his own civility, but then again I’d like a pony, too.
Other than Derleth’s quote about linguistics, everyone else I found who used the term “bigotry” appears to be using it in the sense that I described. I didn’t do a search on “bigoted,” but I strongly suspect it’d show similar results.
Well, language changes so perhaps if enough time passes we can look back on this thread and see that you are right Until then I think at least from a common starting point the dictionary definitions should be taken as the standard usage of words. Non-standard uses are fine sometimes. I’m not sure if this is one of those times. I will add…
I am right, and all the dictionaries agree with me
Well, you’ve spent more time than me. I’m not going to read each of the linked threads and do an analysis of the context from which the term was used. Upon first reading of only the quoted parts, I think it’s inconclusive. The term in each passage could be replaced with the word “intolerance” or “obstinance” and remain unchanged in meaning, I think. If that’s true, it supports my reading (and every dictionary I’ve found :)) I recognize that a reasonable interpretation of the quoted statements could be that they are using it in the sense you are.
Be right more on stuff and I will. Or maybe you think both sides in the existence of Bigfoot debate has merit
To me, the tactic you like to use is really only used if you’re wrong consistently. Nobody, not even you, really believe there are equally meritable sides to every issue. But if you’re wrong constantly, asking everyone to respect all viewpoints makes you sound magnanimous. Who could possibly be against respecting everyone? The answer: the same people who, when they are right or feel they are right, falls back to telling the other side to shut up because they’re wrong.
My viewpoint will forever be that the side that is right, whatever side that is, should be listened to and the other side mocked or ignored. If that is my side, then so be it, but I try not to be on that side. Unlike others, I will change my viewpoint to fit reality if reality doesn’t agree with me, not the other way around. Despite what people may think of the harshness of my response, this is the admirable way of behaving
They could be replaced with those words, yes–but those words are less specific than the ones I used. Folks almost never use the word to represent obstinance in a sense other than treating a class of people as inferior.
Any side in any discussion that advances appropriately strong evidence in support of a position deserves respect.
The debate about Bigfoot isn’t typically characterized by both sides doing that. But if someone were to come along with a rational approach to the issue, and evidence in support of their view, then, yes.
The problem here is that you seek to apply this dogma to questions that do not have objective answers. “Does Bigfoot exist?” is a factual question, testable and falsifiable. “Should the United States offer paid health care?” is not.
