I’m not sure I understand your question; I thought my previous post clear. It is possible to have an error in thinking that is not the result of hatred or prejudice. For that matter, one can be hateful in theory without being so in practice. I have a sister who believes quite strongly that all homosexuals are bound to literal hellfire, but who also, in her professional capacity, has assisted a lesbian friend of mine get child support from her deadbeat ex, and to retain custody of her children.
Just Googled it, you can find it here.
Lots of people KNOW things. I’m sure racists know, just KNOW, that blacks are inferior. From the tone of your post, it looks like are aware you’re being irrational and don’t care, because you KNOW. Even if you are being rational and have a notebook full of evidence you aren’t sharing, step back and see how these standards apply to others.
I wonder how religion fits into your explanation. Surely one “chooses” to be a Christian, or a Jew, or Buddhist, or a Confuscionist, or whatever … and yet religious groups are constantly persecuted (or just as often crying persecution when they are not).
I mean do you consider me a bigot for railing against Christianity?
Not being a smart ass … it’s an actual question.
EDIT: To clarify - this came to mind because of all the “shall not discriminate on the basis of” laws, which always include religion.
Anthropologically speaking, the most common form of marriage throughout human history has been arranged marriage, in exchange for a dowry or a brideprice paid to the partner’s family. In the cultures that have practiced or contiune to practice arranged marriage, entering into something as economically important as marriage for something as frivolous as love is extrordinarily immature, and often considered as representative of poor upbringing.
Moreover, the most common system of familial descent throughout human history hasn’t been our system of bilateral descent, it’s been matrilineal descent. Under a system of matrilineal descent, one’s family is traced though the mother. A biological father may be loved by his children, but isn’t really the head of the household; he’s more like “mom’s husband.” If the children were looking to the male head of the family for guidance, the person they would look to would be their mother’s oldest brother, their maternal uncle.
So if you were advocating that we should practice marriage the way that the majority of people throughout human history have done it, you’re arguing that your wife’s brother should be arranging a marriage and receiving a dowry for your daughter.
I’ve always thought the whole “He’s not MY president” bit the height of arrogance. #1: You’re an American. #2. He IS the president. #3: He is thus YOUR president. End of story, whether he’s who you supported or not.
I will mostly but not entirely agree. For instance, I think a black person in in the era during which they were denied the franchise would be justified in saying that any president who opposed blacks gaining the franchise was not his or her president.
I see what you’re saying, but no, I cannot go along with it. They were Americans. Whether they reviled the president or not, he was the president. There’s only one. There’s not a shadow president off in the wings.
The reason I qualified it thus was that the relationship must be reciprocal. If I lack the right to participate in the governance of the republic, and the most powerful person in that republic opposes my gaining such a right, then it is not merely pointless but actually irrational to feel loyalty to that person.
Except for Dick Cheney.
That’s exactly what we want you to think. Now if you’ll excuse me I have a volition-sapper to finish.
I agree with Skald. “Taxation without representation” was a rallying cry for the founding of the nation. If I have no say in government, it can hardly be “government of the people, by the people, and for the people.”
That said, this doesn’t apply to the OP. You had your opportunity to participate in the election; your side didn’t win. That’s democracy for you.
The president is the president. You may not like him. You may revile him. But he’s the occupant of the White House. This smart-ass “He’s not my president” guff wins no points with me no matter who the president is.
Good question.
Religion is a special case; even religious people acknowledge that there’s nothing rational about faith. That’s why I don’t believe religion is a choice, either- and therefore anti-religious hatred is bigotry.
It’s not like people say, “well, I think I’ll believe in Jesus today.” At least, I assume it isn’t. I’m not religious, and I haven’t been since I was old enough to make up my own mind.
That doesn’t mean I don’t condemn the inaction of the Catholic Church over the paedophilia thing, or the Islamists who think blowing people up is okay if they believe differently - again, the difference is that you’re allowed to hate someone for their actions, but not for their creeds.
The President and my President are not the same thing. Vladimir Putin has never been my President, and it would be no more legitimate for me to refer to him as such than it would for a slave to refer to Martin Van Buren as his President.
I revile the current president. I often mocked his immediate predecessor. But they were both legitimately my president, because I had both a de jure nd a de facto ability to participate in the process of their election. What I am saying is that my allegiance is predicated upon my possessing that right; if I were barred from voting for reasons of racial or religious bigotry, I would be justified in feeling un-alighed with the nation.
He would be the president of the country in which they reside, but not “their” president. If one is insistent on denying a group their full rights as citizens under the law, one is stating, in effect, that they are not really Americans, but merely residents. If the President is saying that, he is in fact, admitting that he is indeed not “their” President.
I spent 8 years with a president who stole his way into the white house. He then governed from the right ignoring the dems and enriching his powerful backers. He started 2 wars without paying for them and destroyed the economy. Yet through every second the rich spoiled prick was my president too.
That could be true if, say, back in the days of slavery, the slaves did not consider themselves American. But if they DID consider themselves American – and I honestly have no idea to what degree of nationality they thought themselves, whether as American for lack of any other reference or as belonging to the Old Country if recently removed – then that was their president.
But these people like the OP, whom I would bet a shiny dime have never been disenfranchised in any, way, shape or form and who like to go around saying “He’s not my president” while clearly considering themselves American and enjoying full benefits of citizenship, well there’s just no sympathy from my quarter.
And so, exactly WHICH rights is Obama denying the OP??? 
Well spoken.