• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Slander in Politics

If a person smears a Christian as a "homophobe," should that person returh fire?

  • Yes. If they call you a homophobe you should be able to comment on their morals/etc.

    Votes: 5 18.5%

  • No, they shouldn't return fire because they deserve it.

    Votes: 1 3.7%

  • Simply ignore the smears and continue debating.

    Votes: 3 11.1%

  • How about we show some respect and NOT smear eachother?

    Votes: 14 51.9%

  • Don't know/Other

    Votes: 4 14.8%
  • Total voters
    27
Wessexman said:
This entirely depends on definitions of harm and the role of government and all that sort of thing. You even make the claim that it not okay or acceptable to force their morality on others, which is ironic since these terms like okay and acceptable must be moralistic. I'm not saying you are completely wrong, I'm must saying you have to argue your position and not assume it.
Click to expand...

The bottom line is somebody can't use their personal religious beliefs to excuse bigotry because what is going on in their heads isn't relevant, it's how they act that matters. So a rationalization based on their own internal beliefs doesn't buy them anything. I don't care if they're Christian, Muslim, atheist, whatever, the same standard applies to them.
 
Removable Mind said:
1st Amendment = right to free speech - not the right to be heard.

Just like Justice Scalia said Friday about complaints about Corporations being granted the right to unlimited spending on political ads - "Don't like the ruling then turn the TV channel, go to another radio station, ignore the newspaper ads."
Click to expand...

Just found that, thanks.

His exact quote:

“I don’t care who is doing the speech — the more the merrier… People are not stupid. If they don’t like it, they’ll shut it off.”

Couldn't have said it better. This obsession with controlling speech to manipulate election results is founded on the belief that the voters are too stupid to think for themselves.
 
teamosil said:
The bottom line is somebody can't use their personal religious beliefs to excuse bigotry because what is going on in their heads isn't relevant, it's how they act that matters. So a rationalization based on their own internal beliefs doesn't buy them anything. I don't care if they're Christian, Muslim, atheist, whatever, the same standard applies to them.
Click to expand...
So who decides what's bigoted? Have you issued a rule book for the rest of us to abide by?
 
teamosil said:
The bottom line is somebody can't use their personal religious beliefs to excuse bigotry because what is going on in their heads isn't relevant, it's how they act that matters. So a rationalization based on their own internal beliefs doesn't buy them anything. I don't care if they're Christian, Muslim, atheist, whatever, the same standard applies to them.
Click to expand...

To them, it's not bigotry. They aren't trying to get you to buy something. They are expressing their own thoughts, based on their belief system. If you don't agree, then that's no problem, but they are no more bigots for living according to their beliefs than you are.
 
lizzie said:
To them, it's not bigotry. They aren't trying to get you to buy something. They are expressing their own thoughts, based on their belief system. If you don't agree, then that's no problem, but they are no more bigots for living according to their beliefs than you are.
Click to expand...

No, their beliefs are bigotry.
 
Meathead said:
So who decides what's bigoted? Have you issued a rule book for the rest of us to abide by?
Click to expand...

That is not a real argument. It's like arguing that Magic Johnson isn't "tall" because there isn't any universally recognized body that determines how much height is required to be considered tall...
 
lizzie said:
To them, it's not bigotry. They aren't trying to get you to buy something. They are expressing their own thoughts, based on their belief system. If you don't agree, then that's no problem, but they are no more bigots for living according to their beliefs than you are.
Click to expand...

If somebody doesn't like homosexuality and they want to live by those beliefs, that is (of course) totally fine. By all means, nobody is trying to make them be gay or something. But when they try to persecute others or deny them equal rights, that's a whole different ball of wax. Then it becomes bigotry.
 
lizzie said:
To them, it's not bigotry. They aren't trying to get you to buy something. They are expressing their own thoughts, based on their belief system. If you don't agree, then that's no problem, but they are no more bigots for living according to their beliefs than you are.
Click to expand...

The problem with this is that bigotry doesn't depend on your motivations. And now matter how fervently someone believes their position is noble, if it is demonstrably wrong, such as anti-gay bigotry, then that person is still bigoted and wrong. The strength of a belief has no bearing on its validity. Claiming faith and religion as a shield against being wrong? That's bull and we all know it. That's just an appeal to authority. No matter what authority you're appealing to, it's still just a fallacy.
 
misterman said:
No, their beliefs are bigotry.
Click to expand...

The original meaning of bigot was a "religious hypocrite". That would be one who proclaimed to believe one thing, but acted in the opposite fashion. Those who oppose gay marriage based on their religious beliefs are not bigots. They may be distasteful to you the individual, but bigots they are not.
 
lizzie said:
It's not my fault if people can't figure out context and meaning, and prefer to use it for their own ends.
Click to expand...

Huh?

You used a word in a way most don't.
 
misterman said:
Huh?

You used a word in a way most don't.
Click to expand...

Exactly what I said. The original definition of bigot is "religious hypocrite". Just because "most people" don't understand the difference between a bigot and someone who holds to their beliefs in an honest manner, it doesn't mean that the definition has changed. It just reflects that people like to throw terms around for the purpose of inflaming those with whom they don't agree, and trying to emotionally manipulate them into submission.
 
teamosil said:
That is not a real argument. It's like arguing that Magic Johnson isn't "tall" because there isn't any universally recognized body that determines how much height is required to be considered tall...
Click to expand...
They weren't arguments, they were questions. Have you designated yourself to be the arbitrator of bigotry? If so, it would be incumbent on you to explain your criteria and guide us.

Fair enough? Or are afraid of coming off pompous and self righteous?
 
misterman said:
Huh?

You used a word in a way most don't.
Click to expand...

Let me get enough people to misuse a word and, huzzah, we get to change the meaning of the word. :roll:
 
lizzie said:
I don't believe it is bigoted, as there is a basis for their belief, whether rational or irrational as you may yourself believe it is. Their behavior isn't really behavior, but is expression of thought and opinion. Behavior would be something that is concrete and enforceable. Thoughts and opinions don't fit the definition of behaviors.
Click to expand...

When one moves their lips and words make themselves available to ears other than the person saying them...it's a behavior. An individual's personal thoughts become a part of their environment once they openly express them in writing, talking to a friend or a group.

Openly expressed thoughts (in writing, acted out, spoken, etc) "is a behavior" that can influence the behaviors of others...not just a person thinking or feeling something and then potentially acting on it.
 
lizzie said:
Exactly what I said. The original definition of bigot is "religious hypocrite". Just because "most people" don't understand the difference between a bigot and someone who holds to their beliefs in an honest manner, it doesn't mean that the definition has changed. It just reflects that people like to throw terms around for the purpose of inflaming those with whom they don't agree, and trying to emotionally manipulate them into submission.
Click to expand...

Yes, the definition has changed.
 
Wake said:
Let me get enough people to misuse a word and, huzzah, we get to change the meaning of the word. :roll:
Click to expand...

Yes. That's how language works - enough people agree on the meaning, and often, that means meanings change.

In fact, you use lots of words every day that mean something totally different from their original meaning.

So until you go look up every single one of the words you use and make sure you go back to the Middle Ages or whatever and stick to their original meaning, you don't get to declare that nobody else can use words by the commonly understood meanings.

Take the very first word in your sentence above "let":

let (v.)
O.E. lætan "to allow, let go, bequeath, leave," also "to rent" (class VII strong verb; past tense let, pp. læten), from P.Gmc. *lætan (cf. O.S. latan, O.Fris. leta, Du. laten, Ger. lassen, Goth. letan "to leave, let"), from PIE *le(i)d- "to leave behind, leave, yield" (cf. L. lassus "faint, weary," Lith. leisti "to let, to let loose"). The primary sense appears to be "to let go through weariness, to neglect." Obsolete let (n.) "hindrance" is from O.E. lettan "hinder, delay," from P.Gmc. *latjanan, related to Mod.Eng. late. Let on "reveal, divulge" is from 1630s; let up "cease, stop" is from 1787.
 
Last edited:
Meathead said:
They weren't arguments, they were questions. Have you designated yourself to be the arbitrator of bigotry? If so, it would be incumbent on you to explain your criteria and guide us.

Fair enough? Or are afraid of coming off pompous and self righteous?
Click to expand...

Like tall "bigotry" is a word. We don't have official arbitrators of words in English. Do you think that means we shouldn't talk? Or what?
 
Meathead said:
They weren't arguments, they were questions. Have you designated yourself to be the arbitrator of bigotry? If so, it would be incumbent on you to explain your criteria and guide us.
Click to expand...

Jeez, nobody said people can't disagree about the details. What, now nobody can oppose bigotry simply because we can have disagreements about exactly what it means?
 
teamosil said:
Like tall "bigotry" is a word. We don't have official arbitrators of words in English. Do you think that means we shouldn't talk? Or what?
Click to expand...
Ok, so we can agree that words have meanings and are they are sometimes relative. I imagine you to be very short, so what is tall to you is probably not to me. You with me so far? Now, what is bigoted to you may not be to me. So, unless you can define what bigoted is to you, I have no way of knowing what that word means to you thus rendering your use of the word pretty much meaningless to everyone but yourself.

"Pompous ass" is another example. I know my definition but I cannot know the definition of others.
 
misterman said:
Jeez, nobody said people can't disagree about the details. What, now nobody can oppose bigotry simply because we can have disagreements about exactly what it means?
Click to expand...

Sure, anyone can oppose it, but it doesn't mean that one's use of the accusation of bigotry is a legitimate complaint.
 
misterman said:
Pretty much.

You insist that only one definition of the word can apply.
Click to expand...
No, I insist that this word in particular partakes of the sinister, pseudo-analytical attempt to diagnose one's opponents. I do not say that is always at the forefront of the minds of those using them, I say it is simply part of the milieu from which the word comes, how it is constructed and what it still means.
 
Last edited:
teamosil said:
The bottom line is somebody can't use their personal religious beliefs to excuse bigotry because what is going on in their heads isn't relevant, it's how they act that matters. So a rationalization based on their own internal beliefs doesn't buy them anything. I don't care if they're Christian, Muslim, atheist, whatever, the same standard applies to them.
Click to expand...

As I said this is all question begging. Who says it is bigotry?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom