Monty berates the bigot, msmith537.

[Gaspode]

Sayeth pennylane
Gaspode, I’ve said it before, what I can’t understand is the idea of feeling varying degrees of emotional attachment to people whom you don’t know.

Then you have my sympathy. I can’t imagine going through life having the same understanding of the personality and thoughts and desires of the entire world that I haven’t met. To me it would be a massive torture to understand as little about the lives of the average American as I do about the lives of the average Diak. To me that would require wiping away all that I know of American lifestyle and culture and history and personalities until I knew as little of them as I do of Diak lifestyle and culture and history and personalities. While I have knowledge of people they are real to me, not abstracts. The more I know of them the less abstract they are. I know about Americans and as such I feel them to be real people, my brothers, not figures in an almanac. I know nothing of Diak aside from the fact that they exist. For me such people can no more evoke emotion than fictinal characters. If someone invented the Diak, if they never existed I would be none the wiser, my world would be no poorer for that fact. I take it on faith only that such a people exist. I cannot feel emotionally connected to such people. That you move through this world caring as little for the strangers who live three doors down as you do for the Diak fills me with immense sorrow. I doubt we will ever understand each other.

So if you were to say that white people were more important to you than black people, would that be okay?

What the hell ::eek:?
What are you, the thought police? Of course it would be okay. People should be free to feel however they like. If you like chocolate ice cream more than vanilla that’s your preference. If you prefer tall men over short, that’s your preference. If you prefer associating with educated, enlightened, moral people over drug-fucked vermin that’s your prefrence, and if you value white people over black that’s also your preference. Who the hell am I to tell you what your values should be. I am shocked, shocked that you honestly believe that anyone should be able dictate personal choice to others. More nauseted than shocked actually. Believe what you like, value how you feel, just don’t try to justify it with false logic and psuedoscience the way many people try to. So long as you admit that you don’t value black people as highly is because of emotional reasons then I have no problems with that. Your emotions are your own affair and no concern of mine or anyone elses.

think that in fact some black people would probably say that they value other black people more highly than white people. I think that this is due to the fact that people who consider themselves members of an oppressed minority group feel that it is important for that group to be united.

So what? If such a belief is wrong in your eyes then it is wrong for all people. To suggets that minorities should be able to embrace amoral ideas that you wouldn’t tolerate in WASPS is bigoted in itself. WHat exactlya are you getting at here?

Personally, Gaspode, I wouldn’t call you a bigot.

Call me what you like. But if you’re going to do it on these boards you’re going to have to support your claims or else appear extremely ignorant. By all means call me a bigot if you see any evidence of intolerance, I’d appreciate it. But if you imply I or anyone else is a bigot on these boards wihtout providing the necessray evidence of intolerance I’m going to call you out.

Most people identify themselves with some group - be it members of their country, religion, or race - and would value the lives of people within that group more than the lives of other people. Unfortunately for me, I don’t really belong to any group, so I can’t pretend that I have overcome or thought through this temptation and am now more enlightened than you.

:rolleyes:
Look penny, this has absolutely nothing to do with belonging to a group. Nowhere have I said that or even implied it. If I was as intimate with a completely alien culture to which I do not belong as I am with American culture I would value those people more highly. It is entirely and exclusively down to empathy and an ability to identify the humanity of people, not belonging. In case you haven’t noticed I’m not American myself. Never been there. This isn’t a temptation that has to be fought and overcome. It’s the way my brain, and apparently the brain of most people here, works. I don’t have a problem with it, it doesn’t hurt anyone, it doesn’t affect my life, it just is. By implying that this is something that should be overcome you come across as more than a little sanctimonious.

If you value the lives of other Americans more highly than the lives of foreigners simply because of your sense of unity with other Americans, then you are simply being patriotic.

But Penny, I’m an Aussie. I just happen to be almost as familiar with American culture as my own.

But what I cannot understand is the claim that you share some sort of familiarity with Americans that wouldn’t apply to Canadians or Europeans.

Leaving aside the fact that I never made any such claim…
If you really can’t understand how living side by side with a group of people, sharing their misfortunes, their ideals thier dreams, their history, their belief system could lead one to become familiar with them in a way not possible with a group of people with whom you do not share these bonds then I really do pity you.

Tell me Penny, what does the average Diak wife have for breakfast in the morning? What are the little things that will hit her hardest as she prepares breakfast at the start of her day when she realises her husband is dead? When will she be forced to face people again? What will be hardest for her to endure? Will Christmas be lonely? Thanksgiving cheerless? If you can’t answer these questions then how can you say that you feel as much empathy with the Diaks as you do with the Americans?

I have met Americans who are utterly different from each other…

And I will repeat myself: Perhaps it would be more correct to say “I value the lives of people with whom I can empathise more than those with whom I cannot, and while acknowldging that the vast cultural melting pot that is modern America may lead to the presence of people or groups of people with whom I cannot readily empathise, and while similarly acknowledging that many Afghans may be people with whom I could readily empathise I find myself on the whole, in the balance, all additional factors being take into account, valuing American lives over and above Afghan”. However such clarification is not germaine to the discussion at hand and doesn’t make for readable posts.

You are guilty of splitting hairs Penny. We are all well aware of the multi-cultural nature of the modern US. This does not in any way detract from the underlying truth of the statement.

I haven’t found such a vast range of opinion in all other countries combined.

Then I suggest you try either England or Australia.

But Gaspode, I am not debating that your family, friends and possessions should be more important to you than those of others.

And again you miss the fact that that was an obvious analogy. The point is that saying “A is more valuable tha B to me” can never be wrong and is not open to debate. Saying “A is more valuable tha B” can be demonstrated to be wrong. You have missed the point entirely.

Personally, I don’t have a car, but if I ever see a broken-down VW beetle I’ll feel a lot worse than I would if it were any other car. Because I like VW beetles more than other cars. Which is not to say that I wish harm upon other cars. But I would be guilty of preferential treatment to cars, based solely on the car’s group identity and not on its individual merits.

No you wouldn’t be guilty of any such thing! You haven’t treated any car in any way. You have merely observed and felt. That is not preferential treatment. Had you got out and covered the Beetle up and left the other untouched that would be preferential treatment, but simply observing and feeling is not preferential treatment by any definition I’ve ever seen. Exactly which treatment is the more prefrential? Observing and doing nothing as was the case with the Beetle, or observing ad doing nothing as was the case with the other car? Surely both treatments are the same?

[Gary_Kumquat]

*Originally posted by Syzygy *
I just can’t see how msmith537 is being a bigot. We’ve established that by definition, a bigot is a person that is partial to his/her own race, religion, etc., and is intolerant of others

A few people have said this. Out of interest, does the following count as showing intolerance?

Originally posted by msmith537
IMHO, those people are all nuts. Half a century of war, famine, and poverty has created a nation of violent psychopaths.

[pennylane]

*Originally posted by Gaspode *
That you move through this world caring as little for the strangers who live three doors down as you do for the Diak…

Of course, you could also say that I care as much for the Diak as I do for the strangers who live three doors down.

*Originally posted by Gaspode *
If you prefer tall men over short, that’s your preference.

Prefer tall men over short in what way? To feel that it is better for a short man to be killed than a tall man?

*Originally posted by Gaspode *
So what? If such a belief is wrong in your eyes then it is wrong for all people. To suggets that minorities should be able to embrace amoral ideas that you wouldn’t tolerate in WASPS is bigoted in itself. WHat exactlya are you getting at here?

I never said that this belief is wrong. What I was getting at was that since I tolerate it in minorities, I also tolerate it in WASPS. What I was trying to show was the exact opposite of what you took from it.

*Originally posted by Gaspode *
But if you imply I or anyone else is a bigot on these boards wihtout providing the necessray evidence of intolerance I’m going to call you out.

I don’t think I implied any such thing.

*Originally posted by Gaspode *
By implying that this is something that should be overcome you come across as more than a little sanctimonious.

Actually I was trying to say that as I have not overcome it myself, I don’t have any basis for thinking that it is something that should be overcome.

*Originally posted by Gaspode *
**

But what I cannot understand is the claim that you share some sort of familiarity with Americans that wouldn’t apply to Canadians or Europeans.

Leaving aside the fact that I never made any such claim…**

Sorry, you’re right, msmith537 made that claim.

*Originally posted by Gaspode *
Then I suggest you try either England or Australia.

I’ve tried England, but Australia’s a bit far away for me.

*Originally posted by Gaspode *
If you really can’t understand how living side by side with a group of people, sharing their misfortunes, their ideals thier dreams, their history, their belief system could lead one to become familiar with them in a way not possible with a group of people with whom you do not share these bonds then I really do pity you.

And if you cannot imagine the misfortunes, ideals, dreams, history, and belief systems of those people with whom you have not lived side by side, then I pity you.

[SuaSponte]

*with credit to mswas *
Reading more of the thread, what people don’t seem to realize is that Family Ties ARE bigotry, while it may be formed from a coherent purpose, IE protecting your tribe from other tribes, it is still bigotry. When you fight against people who would harm your Family for your safety, you are saying that their safety is less valuable than yours, to you. And they are saying the same thing, so it is bigotry, you are claiming a higher value on one than the other.
Family ties ARE bigotry as it places a value judgement on one group of people over another.

-or-

*with credit to mswas *
Reading more of the thread, what people don’t seem to realize is that Romantic Love IS bigotry, while it may be formed from a coherent purpose, IE companionship, procreation, etc., it is still bigotry. When you fight against people who would harm your Loved One, you are saying that their safety is less valuable than your Loved One’s, to you. So it is bigotry - you are claiming that your Loved One has a higher value than the other.
Romantic Love IS bigotry as it places a value judgement on one person over another.

Sua

[Gaspode]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by pennylane *

Prefer tall men over short in what way? To feel that it is better for a short man to be killed than a tall man?

Prefer in any way. Value in any way. Values are values are values. They’re neither right nor wrong. Only the reasons leading to them can be judged as such, and when the sole reason is emotion and gut feeling such judgements cannnot be made by reasonable people.

I don’t think I implied any such thing.

I never said you did. I merely expressed indifference to whatever labels you wish to apply to me with a qualifier that if you do apply such labels be prepared to support them.

And if you cannot imagine the misfortunes, ideals, dreams, history, and belief systems of those people with whom you have not lived side by side, then I pity you. **

Then please answer my questions as posted above. Tell me what you imagine the average Diak wife have for breakfast in the morning? What are the little things that will hit her hardest as she prepares breakfast at the start of her day when she realises her husband is dead? When will she be forced to face people again? What will be hardest for her to endure? Will Christmas be lonely? Thanksgiving cheerless? Use your imagination to fill in those gaps, and then expound for us on exactly what the misfortunes, ideals, dreams, history, and belief systems of a ‘typical’ 35 yo Diak man are. I can certainly answer all of those questions for a ‘typical’ American without any effort, as could anyone else who has posted here. By saying that you pity me for not being able to do this solely by imagination you are implying that you can do it. Now I’m asking you to put yout money where your mouth is. Your imaginings of course must actually be accurate, otherwise these imaginings don’t to compare to my knowledge gained by living side by side with the people.
This is not a rhetorical question, I earnestly wish to hear from you what you imagine the misfortunes, ideals, dreams, history, and belief systems of a ‘typical’ 35 yo Diak man are. If you can’t do this then your claim that you can’t understand increased knowledge bringing increased familiarity because you are familiar with all people is going to be displayed for what I suspect it is.

If you can then I suspect that you are truly a saint.

Gary,

does the following count as showing intolerance?

Well, taken out of context as it is, I’d have to say it comes pretty damn close if we make the massive assumption that it isn’t actually true. [sub]pathos alert.[/sub] However let me reiterate. The debate at hand is whether mssmith could justifiably be called a bigot for placing a value on human life. The OP claimed such and way overstepped the mark in doing so. Now if Monty wanted to call him a bigot for that comment I wouldn’t have bothered entering the debate.

Suasponte,
Nice post. Succinct, punchy. Wish I’d thought of it.

[Freedom]

A few people have said this. Out of interest, does the following count as showing intolerance?
quote:

Originally posted by msmith537
IMHO, those people are all nuts. Half a century of war, famine, and poverty has created a nation of violent psychopaths.

Wouldn’t you have to show that was incorrect before it was bigotry?

Public executions and chopping off people’s hands seems a little out of the ordinary to me.

Of course, maybe your tolerance extends all the way to accepting the way they subjugate and treat the women over there.

[Freedom]

**msmith537
**
If you e-mail a moderator, they will correct your screen name for you. They have done the same for me and several others.

[pennylane]

*Originally posted by Gaspode *
**

Prefer tall men over short in what way? To feel that it is better for a short man to be killed than a tall man?

Prefer in any way. Value in any way. Values are values are values. They’re neither right nor wrong. Only the reasons leading to them can be judged as such, and when the sole reason is emotion and gut feeling such judgements cannnot be made by reasonable people.**

Oh, right, so you don’t think see any difference between preferring a tall person as a sexual partner and thinking that it is better for a short person to be killed than a tall one.

*Originally posted by Gaspode *
Then please answer my questions as posted above. Tell me what you imagine the average Diak wife have for breakfast in the morning?

Okay, how is this relevant to anything? Well, maybe it is for you but it makes no difference to me. I wouldn’t be able to guess what the average American has for breakfast in the morning either.

The little things that will hit her hardest? Probably the sight of his possessions, the smell of him still lingering in her home, the sight of other people still enjoying life with their husbands… I don’t know or care when she will be forced to face people again… what will be hardest for her to endure? The knowledge that she will not see her husband again in this life? She may not celebrate Christmas or Thanksgiving (and strangely, not one of the Americans I know celebrates either) but there will be days of religious or cultural significance to her people. I don’t need to know the names of every festival on earth to imagine its importance to those who celebrate it.

I can imagine that when a Diak man gets hurt he feels the same pain I do. I can imagine that he dreams of rising to a position of leadership and influence among his people. I can imagine that he wants to emulate heroes from the past. I can imagine that he remembers being a child and learning about the world around him from his parents and elders. I can imagine that he wants to do the same for his children, to teach them how to provide for themselves and keep themselves safe. I can imagine that he believes that his life is affected by forces of good and evil which are beyond his comprehension. I can imagine that he wants to live his life in happiness and freedom, with food and shelter for himself and for his family. I can imagine that he probably feels worse when a Dyak person dies than when an Australian or American person dies across the seas.

[mswas]

*Originally posted by spooje *
**

*Originally posted by mswas *
**When you fight against another nationality for your safety, you are saying that their safety is less valuable than yours, to you. **

Or you’re saying that they have attacked you. **

So they attacked you, and you fear that they will attack you again, and hurt your safety unless you attack them back, that is defending yourself, and you are doing on national lines for if they attacked Uzbekistan we could give a fuck. So we are putting a higher priority on our own safety than we are putting on theirs. That’s what I am saying. Nationalism IS bigotry, whether it’s justified bigotry or not. So my point is that a certain level of bigotry is justified though I think it is important to view it as bigotry so that the healing process at the end can be swifter by letting go of that national pride once the conflict is over.

Erek

[mswas]

From Gaspode:

Then I find you to be a moral coward who is prepared to embrace that which he knows to be wrong for personal gain. That to me is far worse than someone who embraces evil out of ignorance or genuine belief that it is right. If a war can’t gain my support or the support of my nation wihtout resorting to acts of evil then it doesn’t deserve that support.

I thought you were an idiot as per almost every post I read from you, but this one clinches it. Basically because I don’t prescribe to YOUR morality or YOUR ideals or YOUR semantics, that makes me a moral coward and obviously means I don’t have any set of ideals that I would stand up for.

God you’re a moron.

Erek

[mswas]

*Originally posted by SuaSponte *
**

*with credit to mswas *
Reading more of the thread, what people don’t seem to realize is that Family Ties ARE bigotry, while it may be formed from a coherent purpose, IE protecting your tribe from other tribes, it is still bigotry. When you fight against people who would harm your Family for your safety, you are saying that their safety is less valuable than yours, to you. And they are saying the same thing, so it is bigotry, you are claiming a higher value on one than the other.
Family ties ARE bigotry as it places a value judgement on one group of people over another.

-or-

*with credit to mswas *
Reading more of the thread, what people don’t seem to realize is that Romantic Love IS bigotry, while it may be formed from a coherent purpose, IE companionship, procreation, etc., it is still bigotry. When you fight against people who would harm your Loved One, you are saying that their safety is less valuable than your Loved One’s, to you. So it is bigotry - you are claiming that your Loved One has a higher value than the other.
Romantic Love IS bigotry as it places a value judgement on one person over another.

Sua **

Thank you Sua, I was thinking I was gonna get lambasted because no one understood what I was saying.

What I am saying is we cannot avoid bigotry, what we
need to make sure of is that we don’t let our bigotry run way with us. Which I think is the crux of the problem with mssmith. I think she was skirting close to the edge of unacceptable bigotry, even a little bit beyond the pale on it but not by too much.

Erek

[msmith537]

*Originally posted by Gary Kumquat *

Originally posted by Syzygy *
I just can’t see how msmith537 is being a bigot. We’ve established that by definition, a bigot is a person that is partial to his/her own race, religion, etc., and is intolerant of others*

A few people have said this. Out of interest, does the following count as showing intolerance?

Originally posted by msmith537
IMHO, those people are all nuts. Half a century of war, famine, and poverty has created a nation of violent psychopaths.

**

While the language may be inflamatory, this is not a statement of prejudice. I am just asserting an opinion that because this particular region of the world has basically experienced battlefield conditions for the past 50 years or so, there are probably a very high number of people suffering from at the very least high levels of anger and stress and at worst actual psychotic conditions. I base this on the fact that many US soldiers came back from Vietnam with post-traumatic stress problems. They served a relativly short period of time and were able to return to a country with modern health care. Compare that to a nation of people who spent their entire lives living with war and lawlessness.

My opinion has nothing to do with the fact that these people were Afghans. It has to do with the situation and culture of where they happened to grow up.

Monty

I also suspect that he has never been in combat otherwise there is no way he could assert that the guy fueling the plane on the carrier is under the same pressure as the pilot who flys into harms way.

Again, you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are not a military person. Four words for you: USS COLE. **

I thought I already proved that when I told you I wasn’t in the military?

Anyway, were you actually on the Cole or are you asserting that the guys on the carrier face the same level of danger as the pilots and therefore the same level of stress?

I can’t believe that is the case. You mean to tell me that the guys in the ships 5 miles offshore at Normandy experience the same stress as the soldiers on the beach?

[Monty]

Let’s see:

No, I was not on the USS COLE.

Yes, I am asserting that the Sailors & Marines on the ships face danger.

Especially since the Taliban have approximately zero AAA but there are still a good number of outfits in that area which don’t exactly like the U.S.A.

And for the D-Day invasion: the Axis did still have a functioning Navy at the time, IIRC, to include submarines with torpedos. Oh, and weren’t there shore guns which could’ve hit the ships?

Now, as to the Soldiers on the beach: that was D-Day. As of yet, there haven’t been any pilots on the beach in Afghanistan.

Did I miss anything?

[Monty]

Yep, missed something.

Plenty of danger for all involved on an aircraft carrier. The mass conflagration aboard the USS FORRESTAL proved that beyond a shadow of a doubt.

[SuaSponte]

*Originally posted by mswas *
Thank you Sua, I was thinking I was gonna get lambasted because no one understood what I was saying.

Hate to have to tell you this, mswas, but I was mocking you.

Sua

[mswas]

*Originally posted by SuaSponte *
**

*Originally posted by mswas *
Thank you Sua, I was thinking I was gonna get lambasted because no one understood what I was saying.

Hate to have to tell you this, mswas, but I was mocking you.

Sua **

That’s ok, I still agree with what you said.
Curses, I would have gotten away with it too if it hadn’t been for those meddling lawyers.

Erek

[Gaspode]

Prefer in any way. Value in any way. Values are values are values. They’re neither right nor wrong. Only the reasons leading to them can be judged as such, and when the sole reason is emotion and gut feeling such judgements cannot be made by reasonable people.

Oh, right, so you don’t think see any difference between preferring a tall person as a sexual partner and thinking that it is better for a short person to be killed than a tall one.

:rolleyes:
No Penny. That is what we around here call a strawman.
I have never said that it is better for a short person to be killed than a tall one. In fact I have stated quite the opposite. Remember when you said “I did not intend to dispute your claim that your empathy with the dog does not… mean that you do not condemn both crimes equally”? I will repeat one final time for clarification: Placing a higher value on one subject over another does not mean that one has to consider crimes involving that subject to be of a higher order. If I value a tall person more highly that does not mean that I consider the murder of a short person less of a crime, just as if I value a dog over a goldfish I don’t consider the killing of a goldfish to be less of a crime, just as if I value caviar over pate de fois gras I don’t consider the theft of pate de fois gras less of a crime. I am appalled that you don’t understand that most people are capable of judging the seriousness of a crime by it’s effect, not by the personal value they place on the objects/people involved.

the smell of him still lingering in her home

Bzzzt. Wrong. The Diak are extremely nomadic, making a new home every night. His smell couldn’t linger in her home.

I don’t know or care when she will be forced to face people again

So when you say that you care as much for Americans as you do for Diak you mean you don’t care when an American woman will be forced to face people again? That’s not very empathic or vary symapathetic.
And Penny you still haven’t answered my question in all that.

Here is how the conversation went:

Me: If you really can’t understand how living side by side with a group of people, sharing their misfortunes, their ideals thier dreams, their history, their belief system could lead one to become familiar with them in a way not possible with a group of people with whom you do not share these bonds then I really do pity you.

You: And if you cannot imagine the misfortunes, ideals, dreams, history, and belief systems of those people with whom you have not lived side by side, then I pity you.

Me: Fine, since you imply that you can imagine the misfortunes, ideals, dreams, history, and belief systems of those people with whom you have not lived side by side, then go ahead and do so. I earnestly wish to hear from you what you imagine the misfortunes, ideals, dreams, history, and belief systems of a ‘typical’ 35 yo Diak man are

You have so far contributed under dreams ‘I can imagine that he dreams of rising to a position of leadership and influence among his people’
Well that’s a start, but completely inaccurate. Positions of authority amongst the Diak are non-existent.

Now I want you to imagine for us his misfortunes, ideals, history and belief system. You said that you could imagine all those things. Can you going to demonstrate that for us?

Originally posted by erek
Basically because I don’t prescribe to YOUR morality or YOUR ideals or YOUR semantics, that makes me a moral coward and obviously means I don’t have any set of ideals that I would stand up for.

No Erek, my ideals don’t enter into it. You are only prepared to stand up for your own ideals so long as you and your wife don’t get killed. If there is any danger of that you not only won’t stand up for those ideals, you will actually support bigotry, something your conscience tells you to be morally wrong. The definition of a coward is ‘One who shows ignoble fear in the face of danger or pain’. As I said earlier, had you embraced bigotry out of ignorance or a belief in its correctness then you would not be a coward. The ignoble act of embracing it out of fear is what makes you a coward. My semantics don’t enter into it, only the definitions provided by Merriam-Webster.

[mswas]

No Erek, my ideals don’t enter into it. You are only prepared to stand up for your own ideals so long as you and your wife don’t get killed. If there is any danger of that you not only won’t stand up for those ideals, you will actually support bigotry, something your conscience tells you to be morally wrong. The definition of a coward is ‘One who shows ignoble fear in the face of danger or pain’. As I said earlier, had you embraced bigotry out of ignorance or a belief in its correctness then you would not be a coward. The ignoble act of embracing it out of fear is what makes you a coward. My semantics don’t enter into it, only the definitions provided by Merriam-Webster.

Wow, you don’t have any trouble convincing yourself of anything do you? Because in my semantic argument I said nationalism is bigotry, I am therefore a coward? Because I am willing to accept some unsavory acts to protect my home, that makes me a coward? So basically, unless I delude myself, then anything else is cowardice?

Moron.

Erek

[Gaspode]

*Originally posted by mswas *
Because in my semantic argument I said nationalism is bigotry, I am therefore a coward? Because I am willing to accept some unsavory acts to protect my home, that makes me a coward? So basically, unless I delude myself, then anything else is cowardice?
**

No Erek, not because you said nationalism is bigotry, are you a coward? Because you said that nationalism is bigotry you are illogical.

Not because you are willing to accept some unsavory acts to protect your home are you a coward? This is not an unsavory act. An unsavoury act is one which you do not savour. Killing my own chickens is an unsavoury act. I’m willing to accept it in order to eat fresh chicken, but it is not an act I savour. This act is wrong according to your own ideals.
Because you are willing to embrace an act which you know to be wrong when faced with danger are you a coward. Embracing that which you know to be wrong is an ignoble act spawned by your own admisssion out of fear for your own life and happiness. One who shows ignoble fear in the face of danger is a coward. Unless you are prepared to argue either that embracing an act that you hold to be wrong is noble, or that you do not hold bigotry to be wrong then you are a coward by definition.
No you don’t have to delude yourself in order to be a coward. You merely have to act in in an ignoble, fearful manner when threatened. You simply have to be prepared to abandon your principals as soon as your own life is in danger. No delusion is necessary.

It is not necessary to either delude yourself or be a coward. There are many options that involve neither delusion nor cowardice. Be clear sighted, embrace your principals. Live by them no matter what. That is neither deluded nor cowardly. Abandon all principals all the time so that fear does not affect your stance based on those principals. That is neither cowardly nor deluded. Having principals that dictate that something is wrong, yet abandoning those principals and embracing that which you know to be wrong out of fear: that is cowardly.

[Typo_Negative]

*Originally posted by mswas *
**Because in my semantic argument I said nationalism is bigotry, **

[spanish accent]You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means.[/spanish accent]

You say ‘Nationalism is bigotry’ as if it were undisputed fact. None of my dictionary references support that. Could you tell us what references you are using?