Progressive Va. School Refuses To Play Sports With Icky Christian Kids

[Cecilie1200]

Fact. You and the "progressive" bigots are outraged at the Christian school for "segregating" themselves from homosexuals by not letting them teach there, and your reaction is to segregate yourselves from Christians in a far more extensive fashion.

So . . . I would say "cool dodge", but it really wasn't.

No, the nature of a fact is that its empirical and not subjective. This topic is opinion-based, and the nature of its conclusions are subjective in virtue of that.

Your opinion of pro bigotry is not my problem.

Are you still arguing that bigotry isn't bigotry if the people you are boycotting are really bad people ?

I don't quite frankly care what you think I'm arguing - I can make a rational case against homophobia and a rational case for boycott of a homophobic school without any need to invoke word games whatsoever. Ideas stand on their own merit, labels notwithstanding and standing there and purposefully missing the nuance between the two ideas being presented doesn't have any utility in an otherwise rational discussion - it's games with words. It's for the inept - the ideas can be discussed on their merit.

Additionally, "tolerance against intolerance" is a discussion in philosophy that was based around each being equally considered some form of bigotry. It's not some defeater, or "gotchya" that can be invoked any time someone's poor ideas are exposed. One way, is to realize that bigotry is personally threatening and not just a difference of opinion. I don't need to play word games, though, to argue the merit of the actual ideas because I dont need a gotya on the internet.

BIgotry doesn't have to be personally threatening to be bigotry............ Come on man


I'm intolerant of fat people, they disgust me . Go on a diet, get some exercise, do SOMETHING. But I don't personally threaten fat people . Does that mean I'm not bigoted even though my attitude towards fat people perfectly fits the description?

You're missing the point.

There's no utility in the "but but but but thats bigotry tooo!!!" word game, it's a matter of "good idea vs. bad idea / right vs. wrong" and the rest is just semantics that bear no fruit. It's a fuggin neener that's completely beside any point regarding the issue.

"There's no utility in using our favorite insult against us, because it's only bad when OTHER people do it!"

 

[DandyDonovan]

Are you still arguing that bigotry isn't bigotry if the people you are boycotting are really bad people ?

I don't quite frankly care what you think I'm arguing - I can make a rational case against homophobia and a rational case for boycott of a homophobic school without any need to invoke word games whatsoever. Ideas stand on their own merit, labels notwithstanding and standing there and purposefully missing the nuance between the two ideas being presented doesn't have any utility in an otherwise rational discussion - it's games with words. It's for the inept - the ideas can be discussed on their merit.

Additionally, "tolerance against intolerance" is a discussion in philosophy that was based around each being equally considered some form of bigotry. It's not some defeater, or "gotchya" that can be invoked any time someone's poor ideas are exposed. One way, is to realize that bigotry is personally threatening and not just a difference of opinion. I don't need to play word games, though, to argue the merit of the actual ideas because I dont need a gotya on the internet.

BIgotry doesn't have to be personally threatening to be bigotry............ Come on man


I'm intolerant of fat people, they disgust me . Go on a diet, get some exercise, do SOMETHING. But I don't personally threaten fat people . Does that mean I'm not bigoted even though my attitude towards fat people perfectly fits the description?

You're missing the point.

There's no utility in the "but but but but thats bigotry tooo!!!" word game, it's a matter of "good idea vs. bad idea / right vs. wrong" and the rest is just semantics that bear no fruit. It's a fuggin neener that's completely beside any point regarding the issue.

Hey, YOU are the one who earlier in the thread tried to say it was not bigoted to refuse to play a game at this Christian school because you were intolerant towards their beliefs. I merely stated that that too is bigotry. I accept your admission and will brook the issue no further.

I don't invoke the term bigotry for any time people have a disagreement, because if we're being technical with terms then bigotry can be good......... and bigotry can be bad............but it's generally used colloquially to refer to "bad bigotry." Of course, unless you're on a message board, this doesn't need to be delineated because rational agents understand that words are often used in their colloquial sense which is where this "game" becomes useless, in utility.

What I'm referring to with the Religious Based Ban is a bad idea, after consideration.
What I'm referring to with the boycott of that Religious school is a good idea, after consideration.

Yes, this is no different of a stance than idiots who believe bakers should be FORCED to bake for gays even if they don't want to , but cheer on when people say they won't serve Trump supporters.

Meanwhile I'm just over not caring who boycotts what or why. Nor do I believe ANYONE should be forced to do business with any one else.

 

[G.T.]

I don't quite frankly care what you think I'm arguing - I can make a rational case against homophobia and a rational case for boycott of a homophobic school without any need to invoke word games whatsoever. Ideas stand on their own merit, labels notwithstanding and standing there and purposefully missing the nuance between the two ideas being presented doesn't have any utility in an otherwise rational discussion - it's games with words. It's for the inept - the ideas can be discussed on their merit.

Additionally, "tolerance against intolerance" is a discussion in philosophy that was based around each being equally considered some form of bigotry. It's not some defeater, or "gotchya" that can be invoked any time someone's poor ideas are exposed. One way, is to realize that bigotry is personally threatening and not just a difference of opinion. I don't need to play word games, though, to argue the merit of the actual ideas because I dont need a gotya on the internet.

BIgotry doesn't have to be personally threatening to be bigotry............ Come on man


I'm intolerant of fat people, they disgust me . Go on a diet, get some exercise, do SOMETHING. But I don't personally threaten fat people . Does that mean I'm not bigoted even though my attitude towards fat people perfectly fits the description?

You're missing the point.

There's no utility in the "but but but but thats bigotry tooo!!!" word game, it's a matter of "good idea vs. bad idea / right vs. wrong" and the rest is just semantics that bear no fruit. It's a fuggin neener that's completely beside any point regarding the issue.

Hey, YOU are the one who earlier in the thread tried to say it was not bigoted to refuse to play a game at this Christian school because you were intolerant towards their beliefs. I merely stated that that too is bigotry. I accept your admission and will brook the issue no further.

I don't invoke the term bigotry for any time people have a disagreement, because if we're being technical with terms then bigotry can be good......... and bigotry can be bad............but it's generally used colloquially to refer to "bad bigotry." Of course, unless you're on a message board, this doesn't need to be delineated because rational agents understand that words are often used in their colloquial sense which is where this "game" becomes useless, in utility.

What I'm referring to with the Religious Based Ban is a bad idea, after consideration.
What I'm referring to with the boycott of that Religious school is a good idea, after consideration.

Yes, this is no different of a stance than idiots who believe bakers should be FORCED to bake for gays even if they don't want to , but cheer on when people say they won't serve Trump supporters.

Meanwhile I'm just over not caring who boycotts what or why. Nor do I believe ANYONE should be forced to do business with any one else.

I'm on board with that, it's fair enough.

 

[DandyDonovan]

BIgotry doesn't have to be personally threatening to be bigotry............ Come on man


I'm intolerant of fat people, they disgust me . Go on a diet, get some exercise, do SOMETHING. But I don't personally threaten fat people . Does that mean I'm not bigoted even though my attitude towards fat people perfectly fits the description?

You're missing the point.

There's no utility in the "but but but but thats bigotry tooo!!!" word game, it's a matter of "good idea vs. bad idea / right vs. wrong" and the rest is just semantics that bear no fruit. It's a fuggin neener that's completely beside any point regarding the issue.

Hey, YOU are the one who earlier in the thread tried to say it was not bigoted to refuse to play a game at this Christian school because you were intolerant towards their beliefs. I merely stated that that too is bigotry. I accept your admission and will brook the issue no further.

I don't invoke the term bigotry for any time people have a disagreement, because if we're being technical with terms then bigotry can be good......... and bigotry can be bad............but it's generally used colloquially to refer to "bad bigotry." Of course, unless you're on a message board, this doesn't need to be delineated because rational agents understand that words are often used in their colloquial sense which is where this "game" becomes useless, in utility.

What I'm referring to with the Religious Based Ban is a bad idea, after consideration.
What I'm referring to with the boycott of that Religious school is a good idea, after consideration.

Yes, this is no different of a stance than idiots who believe bakers should be FORCED to bake for gays even if they don't want to , but cheer on when people say they won't serve Trump supporters.

Meanwhile I'm just over not caring who boycotts what or why. Nor do I believe ANYONE should be forced to do business with any one else.

I'm on board with that, it's fair enough.

And what is so bizarre is people on both sides are doing it and then complaining when the other side does is..... My head was swimming in the thread about this the other day when some poster named SeaWytch based her opinion that refusing to serve gays was not okay but refusing to serve Trump supporters was based SOLELY on the fact that in some states discriminating against gays is illegal. He/She couldn't even comprehend that a person (me for example) could simultaneously defend a person's right to discriminate and not want to discriminate themselves. In fact he/she got so mad that I was accused of incest LOL