It isn’t about what someone believes, but about what he is. The other bigots reason the same way you do, citing not who gay people are but the way they behave. Thus is born the “gay lifestyle” nonsense. Those bigots say that what they call gay behavior is unreasonable, just as you say that what you call patterns of belief are unreasonable. It is possible to be both gay and a fundamentalist Christian. For such a person, “faggot” and “fundie” are equally disparaging.
I don’t think they all do share this pattern of reasoning. However, I do think that “fundies are stupid” and “gay Christian literalists are stupid” are objectively the same. In fact, one almost follows from the other.
Would you believe I meant “chicken”? :o That’ll teach me to try to quote Shakespeare before breakfast.
CJ
You’re missing the point. It isn’t a matter of whether you think either gays or fundamentalists are stupid. It is a matter of choosing a term, like “faggot” or “fundie”, that is intentionally disparaging. That is how “faggots are stupid” and “fundies are stupide” are objectively the same.
I’ve argued on a number of occasions with both of the above, and have found neither to be closed minded or blinkered. I can certianly name a number of leftward leaning posters who are more tied to their ideology.
As such, if you’ve found that they won’t change their point of view when you argue with them, I’d ask if it’s because your arguments weren’t convincing.
I see now. Sorry about the hijack.
IMHO, to presuppose that “faggot” and “fundie” are the same as far as offense taken is concerned seems far fetched. For example, I wouldn’t imagine that saying “commie” is not allowed.
Well, as I explained previously, it is all in the mind of the perceiver.
Ahem! Credit where it’s due, Lib, old buddy. 
We’re far quicker to perceive bias coming from those we disagree with than from those we do agree with.
CJ
I thought he meant chicken pox! Boy, I feel sheepish.
The offensiveness, yes. However, the hatefulness of the comments, which you claimed to be permitted at times and prohibited at other times, is in the mind of the one who posts the comment.
Since semantics is determined by the majority(else, how would we communicate?), and the majority of this board deems “faggot” to be hateful and “fundie” to be non-hateful, this is how things are on this board.
You can therefore claim that the moderators enforce certain semantics that is typical for atheist liberals. It doesn’t follow that there is a double standard as far as hatefulness of the posts is concerned, at least not from this example.
Yes there is. Faggot is directly and intentionally pejorative. Fundie is not. Fundie is no worse than “pubbies” for Republicans or “dems” for Democrats (although, I could see that you might have an issue with “libbies” for Liberals ). Papist might have been pejorative a hundred years ago, but it is so silly that it now lacks any of its intended sting. Given that I know and respect many Fundamentalist Christians who self-identify as “fundy” in mixed company with no attempt to be coy, while I know of no gay men who self-identify as “faggot” in mixed company except in specific contexts of either self-deprecation or in-your-face defiance, I find the notion that fundy is, in and of itself, pejorative to be untenable.
Fundy only becomes pejorative in context while faggot is inherently pejorative. That is an objective difference.
Let’s see, you’ve got your blood, you’ve got your frogs, your gnats, flies, your plague on livestock, your boils, hail, locusts, darkness, and you’ve got your plague on the firstborn.
No plague of chickens, no chicken pox, and no plague of sheep, either. 
I’m a member of D66, but not to worry, I’m not offended.
The Dutch political spectrum may be diverse, but it’s fairly narrow. That is to say, our extreme right is very small, and to an extent, so is our extreme left. This means that the biggest parties (traditionally, CDA [Christians], VVD [Conservatives who call themselves Liberals, but aren’t], and PVDA [Labour]) are all pretty “central” to the spectrum. PVDA slightly to the left, CDA dead center, and VVD a tad to the right. D66 is smaller, and fits somewhere between PVDA and CDA on the scale.
Since the Christian Democrats aren’t complete right wingers (we have other parties for that, like ChristenUnie), and Labour aren’t complete left wingers (there’s parties like GroenLinks and the Socialistische Partij for that), and VVD isn’t that right-wing, coalitions can be formed between all of them, if a compromise can be deduced from the various programs.
Mind you, with the exception of the LPF (the party of the murdered Pim Fortuijn), those 4 parties have been the only ones in government since 1977.
Well, what do you know? I make a nonsequitorial post in parody of the contentions of milroyj (that non-residents of a country shouldn’t care about that country’s affairs) and get a serious answer.
and an awesome answer at that. Thank you Coldfire for:
*“VVD [Conservatives who call themselves Liberals, but aren’t]” *
I wish they could see that themselves.
I love to smile on a rainy Tuesday.
Well, GQ, I figured you had at least done some research to come up with those party names, so an answer would be in order.
But in all seriousness, I don’t mind non-residents discussing, or even judging, politics in my country at all. I mean, if you’re not careful, you just might learn something in the process! Something milroyj might not be too preoccupied with, apparently.
gum, I guess the problem with the VVD is that they shifted more rightward throughout the years - Thorbecke was a true liberal, but he had little in common with what the VVD is today - even at its conception in 1948, the VVD was a mixture of true liberals and true conservatives at best. A division that remains in the party to this day, actually. I guess the conservative wing gradually gained more internal power.
The closest thing we have to true liberalism would be D66, IMHO. But then, as a member, I’m perfectly happy with the moniker “pragmatics” as well. All these 19th century ideology labels do nothing more than obfuscate the party program. Life should be lived on a case-by-case basis - and a country should be governed as such, also.
I’m sorry, Lib, but I totally disagree with this statement. Religious belief is chosen, sexual orientation is not. I respect the right of a person to hold any belief that that he or she wants but I don’t have to respect the belief, itself.
If someone chooses to believe something stupid, I have the right to say that it’s stupid. That’s not hate speech because it only addresses that person’s belief system. It is not an irrational hostility based on some innate part of a person’s geneology or sexuality.
To take it to an extreme, I doubt that you would say that any sort of racial ideology would merit any respect. It wouldn’t be hate speech to say that Nazis are morons. So it’s fair to say, then, that not all religious beliefs deserve equal respect. Some religious beliefs are just fucking stupid. It is those people’s right to choose to believe stupid things but they don’t have a right to not get called on it.
Really, what is the difference between the term “fundie” and the political pejoratives that get thrown around all the time (“Pubbies,” “lefties,” “righties,” “bleeding-hearts,” etc.)?
I think that posting misinformation or lying about another religion is unacceptable (as we’ve seen people do with LDS, RCC and Islam, for instance) but criticism, even contempt for actual belief should be fair game, should it not?
Amen to that. If the needs of individuals were more important to government than the “needs” of society, there would be freedom.
We have those too. Ours are called Democrats.
Maybe I should have used a semi-colon. You’re the second person who missed the rest of the paragraph. The way in which they are equivalent is that both have chosen terms that are deliberately disparaging.
Compare “that faggot is a good man” with “that gay man is stupid”. I’m talking about the first one.