Nonsense, you simply haven’t shown that she is. The way that you are defining bigotry in this instance is so inclusive as to trivialize a pernicious sickness.
:dubious: What is the whoosh here?
I thought that The King of Soup’s argument along with Larry Mudd and if you are really interested in an honest debate, then there’s got to be a better comeback than this.
Fine. But my grandmother, just like Mariko, simply believes that Italians make the best tomato sauce because they are Italian.
You are going down a bumpy road there. Are the best athletes the best baseball players?
Playing the game.
You called me Mr. Duke. You called me a bigot. I disagreed with you, and you called me a bigot.
If you think your ex-grandmother in law is a bigot, then I despair for your ability to “obviously” recognize bigotry. Simply preferring one ethnicity over another, even for no reason at all, is not bigotry. Like my preference for Japanese women (or Italians, or Icelanders, or whatever the fuck) as sexual partners. I hereby proclaim that Bulgarians are the supreme lovers in all creation! That may be an ignorant thing to say, or a provincial thing to say, but it is not a bigoted thing to say.
I know what you said. Please don’t try to blame your inability to express yourself on me. I’m just working with what you are giving me.
On preview, what Larry Mudd said. Refuting a premise is not the same thing as affirming the negative of the premise. Really. You can look it up.
He’s not interested in debating. He already refused to talk to me unless I would agree that he could change my mind. Funny how he didn’t have to agree to have his mind changed.
I’m not holding my breath waiting for him to be logical.
I am not interesting in debating with YOU, because you quite clearly just said that there was no way I could change your mind. Why debate?
Define bigotry for me, Larry. In your own words.
Wow. She clearly said what now? Can you break it down for me? Exactly where did she say that it was impossible for you to change her mind? Please confine your answer to the specific post where she “clearly” said that.
I liked The King of Soup’s argument. It was excellent food for thought.
Larry Mudd’s argument was centered on simply identifying with something or someone thus creating a sense of comfort. I think that is a cop-out and one possible explanation of Mariko’s way of thinking. I think it’s narrow; far more so than the width of bigotry that I’m describing.
The only thing I’ve read so far in this thread is that I am wrong, wrong, wrong and the pile-on is just getting bigger. I am not surprised.
No, I’m not breaking anything else down for you. Your retorts are pedantic and antagonistic.
Her implication was clear. Here’s reasonable dialogue:
Me: “Before before I even waste words, is there any possibility that you’ll see what you think you see another way?”
Reasonable interloculator: “Sure, present your evidence.”
jsgoddess: “I think I’d be happier if you didn’t waste words.”
Now THAT’s openmindedness, right there.
Bigotry is the quality of stubbornly holding ideological views and refusing to apply reason to them or consider any other view, and in particular demonstrating intolerance of anyone who does not also subscribe to those views.
If your little old lady made a point of determining the favourite players of everyone she had any social or professional interaction with, and heaped abuse on people who did not subscribe to her own peculiar preferences, she would be a bigot. If she tried to have her neighbors evicted because she heard in passing that one of them idolized Barry Bonds, she would be a bigot.
“Bigot” is a serious epithet and cannot be applied to any particular instance of having a non-rational preference for something, particularly something that is ultimately trivial.
Well said. I’m convinced. I agree. Thanks Larry.
faints
Cheers, Dudley. 
:: golf clap::
…to bring this back to the thread
Is it Soylent Sauce?
Whatever your point is, it does not address the referenced post. Is it at all possible for you to remain on point? Do you even know what the point was?
This is the referenced post.
This is the post in question. I specifically reminded you not to wander somewhere else. Do you see how your response to me concerned another post altogether? Are you that dishonest, or just congenitically unable to construct a coherent argument?
I quoted you the original post in question. You know, the one to which she was alluding.
Are you really this fucking stupid?
The post is right here.
OK, you’re either incredibly stupid or deliberately stupid. Either way, your ex-grandmother is coming off as being much more evolved.
Here is the post in question. Ah hell, I’ll just print it all out for you.
Your response, my emphasis.
Now, the “just said” refers to that specific post. Not some subsequent post. Get it? She says (A). You respond to (A). You don’t get to pretend that your response was to (Not A).
And I pointed that out to you, here.
So, where in that specific post did she she *just say *that her mind was closed?
Yawn. I’m not interested in your constant mincing of words. You’re quite clearly an asshole. Enjoy the boards! 