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

[Cecilie1200]

Frankly, the league should inform Bigot High School that if they do not show up to the game where and when it has been scheduled, they will forfeit the game to their opponents. I believe that is the standard rule in high school leagues for no-shows.

It's a given that they forfeit, Cecilie. That's what makes it a principled stance - because the parents of the Christian school kids need someone else to teach their kids basic principles of anti discrimination in society. That's really sad, too.

And yet the progressive school people are discriminating against the christian school.

Two wrongs only make a right in the addled mind of the progressive.

So, the Christian school is WRONG for their discrimination now? Can I mark you down for that in virtue of saying "two" wrongs?

So the progressive school is wrong for THEIR discrimination now? Or are you still sticking to the hypocritical "It's not wrong when WE do it" stance?

The school issuing their boycott is in the right in my opinion. Parents teaching their kids to be bigots against someone's natural disposition is kind of sick & twisted.

"It's sick and twisted to teach your kids to be bigots, which is why I support bigotry!"

The school issuing their "boycott" is demonstrating the very behavior they claim to be abhorring, and you are supporting them in being what they claim to abhor. Which makes the school, and you, hypocrites.

In fact, the "progressive" school is going much farther in their bigotry than the school they claim needs to be punished ever went in what you erroneously term bigotry, and you're cheering them for being far worse than what they claim to object to. Which makes the school, AND you, ignorant and pathetic bigots.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The force is the work behind the words, when you try to remove people from society via your words, you are using force.

My issue is again the freedom of others to live how they see fit, not to force them to behave and think they way the prevailing winds want them to.

My views on homosexuality are not material, and I disagree mostly with the Christian school, but I defend their right to set their own rules in this instance, and to not be shamed for it.

Free speech is one of the Virtues of the Enlightenment period. If you cannot stand it, its a function of what the speech is saying and not of disliking the Virtue of free speech.

One would hope.

It's when you back up your speech with consequences to someone else's speech that the issue appears.

This isn't trying to convince the others to change their mind, it's to shun them and force them to submit.

Shunning is speech.

It allows the ideas of merit to STAND on their merit, and then others can decide based on the merit who to stand WITH.

Thats the beauty of Liberty.

At least it is when you're doing it. When someone you disagree with does it - or can be accused of doing it - suddenly it's antithetical to liberty and needs the government to come in and tell them to get their nasty selves back in line with "good speech", ie. what you think they should say.

Strawman. What a waste of time.

"Strawman" does not mean "I don't want to believe you".

You can dodge the fact that you're a hypocrite until your face turns blue. You'll still be a hypocrite.

 

[G.T.]

Free speech is one of the Virtues of the Enlightenment period. If you cannot stand it, its a function of what the speech is saying and not of disliking the Virtue of free speech.

One would hope.

It's when you back up your speech with consequences to someone else's speech that the issue appears.

This isn't trying to convince the others to change their mind, it's to shun them and force them to submit.

Shunning is speech.

It allows the ideas of merit to STAND on their merit, and then others can decide based on the merit who to stand WITH.

Thats the beauty of Liberty.

At least it is when you're doing it. When someone you disagree with does it - or can be accused of doing it - suddenly it's antithetical to liberty and needs the government to come in and tell them to get their nasty selves back in line with "good speech", ie. what you think they should say.

Strawman. What a waste of time.

"Strawman" does not mean "I don't want to believe you".

You can dodge the fact that you're a hypocrite until your face turns blue. You'll still be a hypocrite.

Strawman is invoking Government force when I didnt say that, and then arguing against it...when I didnt say that. Its dishonest. Par.

 

[G.T.]

It's a given that they forfeit, Cecilie. That's what makes it a principled stance - because the parents of the Christian school kids need someone else to teach their kids basic principles of anti discrimination in society. That's really sad, too.

And yet the progressive school people are discriminating against the christian school.

Two wrongs only make a right in the addled mind of the progressive.

So, the Christian school is WRONG for their discrimination now? Can I mark you down for that in virtue of saying "two" wrongs?

So the progressive school is wrong for THEIR discrimination now? Or are you still sticking to the hypocritical "It's not wrong when WE do it" stance?

The school issuing their boycott is in the right in my opinion. Parents teaching their kids to be bigots against someone's natural disposition is kind of sick & twisted.

"It's sick and twisted to teach your kids to be bigots, which is why I support bigotry!"

The school issuing their "boycott" is demonstrating the very behavior they claim to be abhorring, and you are supporting them in being what they claim to abhor. Which makes the school, and you, hypocrites.

In fact, the "progressive" school is going much farther in their bigotry than the school they claim needs to be punished ever went in what you erroneously term bigotry, and you're cheering them for being far worse than what they claim to object to. Which makes the school, AND you, ignorant and pathetic bigots.

Cool opinion.

 

[martybegan]

Christianity as a whole sees homosexual behavior as sinful.

It also saw slavery as acceptable until about 160 years ago.

God didn't change his mind, so we changed ours.

Only parts of it saw slavery as acceptable, and then only to those who were slave owners or traders.

The abolition movement was based on very religious people quoting the same books, only in the right way.

 

[martybegan]

And yet the progressive school people are discriminating against the christian school.

Two wrongs only make a right in the addled mind of the progressive

Nothing wrong with what the progressive school is doing. they are saying, "We don't want to associate with bigots."

If this school didn't let black kids attend, we wouldn't have an issue here.

Race and sexual orientation are not the same thing, regardless of how you push it.

And going by a picture I saw of the progressive school's students, they pretty much handle segregation de facto if not de jure, token minority kids not withstanding.

They claim 35% "students of color" but how many of those are Asians?

 

[martybegan]

When you support boycotts like this, of course you are trying to MAKE people change. And it never ends there. It goes from this, to petitions to the league to kick out the Christian school, to lawsuits to make them change their hiring practices.

And this is a bad thing, why?

I'd go a step further. If your church preaches homophobia, you are excluded from tax exemptions, and have to pay taxes like any other business. Once real money is involved, you'd be AMAZED how fast God changes his mind.

Just ask Bob Jones and the Mormons how fast God changed his mind on race once they were told they couldn't use that excuse anymore.

That would be against free exercise, and thus unconstitutional. Government should not be in the business of picking and choosing religious dogmas that are "Acceptable", regardless of what your dried up bigoted old hide jerks off to.

 

[Papageorgio]

So you are saying that we cannot shield children from these people???

Who's "we", bigot? None of the children involved belong to you. Even if you managed to produce spawn, I doubt you could afford to send them to either of these schools. You're awfully quick to deal yourself into the raising of other people's children.

And the answer is, "Wanting to 'protect' children from ever having to encounter people who are different from them is the definition of 'bigotry'." So congratulations on revealing yourself for what you are yet again.

You are a fundie, and your cult has made no secret of trying to recruit kids when their parents aren't around. Also, if you read the article, some of the Sheridan school students said they felt unsafe at ICS. Apparently, folks at the Sheridan school disapprove of discrimination.The article also said that ICS could come there and play.

I personally was ambushed by two members of my writers' group, two crazy women who rudely whipped out bibles and started questioning me on my beliefs, and I am an adult. Imagine if I had been a child. Only three of us showed up that night and we were supposed to be there to critique each other's work. It's funny that one of them had asked me previously to edit her autobigraphy. I'm glad I ducked.
People used to a lot less rude than they are now.

You poor, poor snowflake, someone actually tried to talk about religion with you. I have had that happen and I just explained to them I don't discuss religion or politics. Then we move on. Sorry you felt so intimidated by a small book.

 

[Lysistrata]

So you are saying that we cannot shield children from these people???

Who's "we", bigot? None of the children involved belong to you. Even if you managed to produce spawn, I doubt you could afford to send them to either of these schools. You're awfully quick to deal yourself into the raising of other people's children.

And the answer is, "Wanting to 'protect' children from ever having to encounter people who are different from them is the definition of 'bigotry'." So congratulations on revealing yourself for what you are yet again.

You are a fundie, and your cult has made no secret of trying to recruit kids when their parents aren't around. Also, if you read the article, some of the Sheridan school students said they felt unsafe at ICS. Apparently, folks at the Sheridan school disapprove of discrimination.The article also said that ICS could come there and play.

I personally was ambushed by two members of my writers' group, two crazy women who rudely whipped out bibles and started questioning me on my beliefs, and I am an adult. Imagine if I had been a child. Only three of us showed up that night and we were supposed to be there to critique each other's work. It's funny that one of them had asked me previously to edit her autobigraphy. I'm glad I ducked.
People used to a lot less rude than they are now.

You poor, poor snowflake, someone actually tried to talk about religion with you. I have had that happen and I just explained to them I don't discuss religion or politics. Then we move on. Sorry you felt so intimidated by a small book.

No. I was appalled that these two stupid bitches tried to trash our writers' group and aimed at me. Ask yourself why these bitches did this. Don't blame me for this. What was their reason for doing this? To try to ruin our event, brought together for a completely other reason than their shenanegans. They were worse than the Hare Krishnas at the airport.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It's when you back up your speech with consequences to someone else's speech that the issue appears.

This isn't trying to convince the others to change their mind, it's to shun them and force them to submit.

Shunning is speech.

It allows the ideas of merit to STAND on their merit, and then others can decide based on the merit who to stand WITH.

Thats the beauty of Liberty.

At least it is when you're doing it. When someone you disagree with does it - or can be accused of doing it - suddenly it's antithetical to liberty and needs the government to come in and tell them to get their nasty selves back in line with "good speech", ie. what you think they should say.

Strawman. What a waste of time.

"Strawman" does not mean "I don't want to believe you".

You can dodge the fact that you're a hypocrite until your face turns blue. You'll still be a hypocrite.

Strawman is invoking Government force when I didnt say that, and then arguing against it...when I didnt say that. Its dishonest. Par.

Sorry, but government force is exactly what you run to when you disagree with things. Trying to pretend otherwise is dishonest.

 

[Cecilie1200]

And yet the progressive school people are discriminating against the christian school.

Two wrongs only make a right in the addled mind of the progressive.

So, the Christian school is WRONG for their discrimination now? Can I mark you down for that in virtue of saying "two" wrongs?

So the progressive school is wrong for THEIR discrimination now? Or are you still sticking to the hypocritical "It's not wrong when WE do it" stance?

The school issuing their boycott is in the right in my opinion. Parents teaching their kids to be bigots against someone's natural disposition is kind of sick & twisted.

"It's sick and twisted to teach your kids to be bigots, which is why I support bigotry!"

The school issuing their "boycott" is demonstrating the very behavior they claim to be abhorring, and you are supporting them in being what they claim to abhor. Which makes the school, and you, hypocrites.

In fact, the "progressive" school is going much farther in their bigotry than the school they claim needs to be punished ever went in what you erroneously term bigotry, and you're cheering them for being far worse than what they claim to object to. Which makes the school, AND you, ignorant and pathetic bigots.

Cool opinion.

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.

 

[G.T.]

Shunning is speech.

It allows the ideas of merit to STAND on their merit, and then others can decide based on the merit who to stand WITH.

Thats the beauty of Liberty.

At least it is when you're doing it. When someone you disagree with does it - or can be accused of doing it - suddenly it's antithetical to liberty and needs the government to come in and tell them to get their nasty selves back in line with "good speech", ie. what you think they should say.

Strawman. What a waste of time.

"Strawman" does not mean "I don't want to believe you".

You can dodge the fact that you're a hypocrite until your face turns blue. You'll still be a hypocrite.

Strawman is invoking Government force when I didnt say that, and then arguing against it...when I didnt say that. Its dishonest. Par.

Sorry, but government force is exactly what you run to when you disagree with things. Trying to pretend otherwise is dishonest.

What the fuck are you talking about, you have me mixed up with someone else but dishonesty is your tactic, its seems like

 

[G.T.]

So, the Christian school is WRONG for their discrimination now? Can I mark you down for that in virtue of saying "two" wrongs?

So the progressive school is wrong for THEIR discrimination now? Or are you still sticking to the hypocritical "It's not wrong when WE do it" stance?

The school issuing their boycott is in the right in my opinion. Parents teaching their kids to be bigots against someone's natural disposition is kind of sick & twisted.

"It's sick and twisted to teach your kids to be bigots, which is why I support bigotry!"

The school issuing their "boycott" is demonstrating the very behavior they claim to be abhorring, and you are supporting them in being what they claim to abhor. Which makes the school, and you, hypocrites.

In fact, the "progressive" school is going much farther in their bigotry than the school they claim needs to be punished ever went in what you erroneously term bigotry, and you're cheering them for being far worse than what they claim to object to. Which makes the school, AND you, ignorant and pathetic bigots.

Cool opinion.

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.

 

[DandyDonovan]

So the progressive school is wrong for THEIR discrimination now? Or are you still sticking to the hypocritical "It's not wrong when WE do it" stance?

The school issuing their boycott is in the right in my opinion. Parents teaching their kids to be bigots against someone's natural disposition is kind of sick & twisted.

"It's sick and twisted to teach your kids to be bigots, which is why I support bigotry!"

The school issuing their "boycott" is demonstrating the very behavior they claim to be abhorring, and you are supporting them in being what they claim to abhor. Which makes the school, and you, hypocrites.

In fact, the "progressive" school is going much farther in their bigotry than the school they claim needs to be punished ever went in what you erroneously term bigotry, and you're cheering them for being far worse than what they claim to object to. Which makes the school, AND you, ignorant and pathetic bigots.

Cool opinion.

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 ?

 

[G.T.]

The school issuing their boycott is in the right in my opinion. Parents teaching their kids to be bigots against someone's natural disposition is kind of sick & twisted.

"It's sick and twisted to teach your kids to be bigots, which is why I support bigotry!"

The school issuing their "boycott" is demonstrating the very behavior they claim to be abhorring, and you are supporting them in being what they claim to abhor. Which makes the school, and you, hypocrites.

In fact, the "progressive" school is going much farther in their bigotry than the school they claim needs to be punished ever went in what you erroneously term bigotry, and you're cheering them for being far worse than what they claim to object to. Which makes the school, AND you, ignorant and pathetic bigots.

Cool opinion.

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.

 

[Papageorgio]

So you are saying that we cannot shield children from these people???

Who's "we", bigot? None of the children involved belong to you. Even if you managed to produce spawn, I doubt you could afford to send them to either of these schools. You're awfully quick to deal yourself into the raising of other people's children.

And the answer is, "Wanting to 'protect' children from ever having to encounter people who are different from them is the definition of 'bigotry'." So congratulations on revealing yourself for what you are yet again.

You are a fundie, and your cult has made no secret of trying to recruit kids when their parents aren't around. Also, if you read the article, some of the Sheridan school students said they felt unsafe at ICS. Apparently, folks at the Sheridan school disapprove of discrimination.The article also said that ICS could come there and play.

I personally was ambushed by two members of my writers' group, two crazy women who rudely whipped out bibles and started questioning me on my beliefs, and I am an adult. Imagine if I had been a child. Only three of us showed up that night and we were supposed to be there to critique each other's work. It's funny that one of them had asked me previously to edit her autobigraphy. I'm glad I ducked.
People used to a lot less rude than they are now.

You poor, poor snowflake, someone actually tried to talk about religion with you. I have had that happen and I just explained to them I don't discuss religion or politics. Then we move on. Sorry you felt so intimidated by a small book.

No. I was appalled that these two stupid bitches tried to trash our writers' group and aimed at me. Ask yourself why these bitches did this. Don't blame me for this. What was their reason for doing this? To try to ruin our event, brought together for a completely other reason than their shenanegans. They were worse than the Hare Krishnas at the airport.

I don't really care, you are a poor victim, I would handle it differently than you did and I really think you need to be mature and just say you don't want to talk religion, it has always been easy for perhaps you are just sensitive.

 

[DandyDonovan]

"It's sick and twisted to teach your kids to be bigots, which is why I support bigotry!"

The school issuing their "boycott" is demonstrating the very behavior they claim to be abhorring, and you are supporting them in being what they claim to abhor. Which makes the school, and you, hypocrites.

In fact, the "progressive" school is going much farther in their bigotry than the school they claim needs to be punished ever went in what you erroneously term bigotry, and you're cheering them for being far worse than what they claim to object to. Which makes the school, AND you, ignorant and pathetic bigots.

Cool opinion.

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?

 

[G.T.]

Cool opinion.

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.

 

[DandyDonovan]

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.

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.

 

[G.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.

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.

This is the crux of the discussion.