Don't ask, don't tell, don't persueFollow

But his stupidity is consistent.

Saying "post 206" over and over isn't stubborn...?

No, it's desperate and lazy.

Soooooo me "completely using a word incorrectly" prevents you from properly defining a word and explaining how it was used incorrectly?

You're wrong and you don't want to admit it. Else, put your money where your mouth is and defend your claim. You attacked me, not vice versa, and you have done so with nothing else other than "urdoinitwrong". If that is sufficient, then my counter is "na-uh, urdoinitwrong".



There is more to Belkira than the past two months of this thread. She has been mostly quiet in this thread as compared to others. I'm sorry if you're unable to realize her point of view after having the same argument numerous of times for over 5 years now.




You are so full crap. There is absolutely no way that you could have "accidentally overlooked" PAGES of him arguing that there are no logical forms of discrimination of race and sexuality (which lead into the actor/actress debate, which lead into the Affirmative Action debate) and just so happen to fall upon that one quote.

He stated that there is none. Once again, you claim "fail safe" on me, but don't when he does it. He obviously "threw the ball in my court", so he could just say "I disagree, that isn't logical" to every response. That's exactly what people accused me of with SSM.

I see that you must have coincidentally overlooked my responses as I "threw the ball back in his court". I told him that if he truly does believe that there exist a scenario, then give me an example of such a scenario. He failed to do so, because he doesn't believe that there currently exists one.

I gave an example, if the military were co-ed, I would fully support it. Why can't he, or anyone else, provide a similar example?



Nowhere in that definition does it hint "with malicious intent". Once again, that's another fallacy that you all like to use. Quit making up definitions.



So, if you're a "die hard Republican" who believe that Republicans are always right in everything, that would make you a bigot. If you're a Protestant Christian who believes that Christians are always right in everything and everyone else is wrong, that would make you a bigot. If you believe that homosexuals are somehow magically exempt from any form of discrimination, unlike every other human trait known to man, that would make you a bigot.



Yet you spent that much effort in that response when all I asked you was to simply define a word and elucidate your point. You're in total disavowal if you believe for a second that you have the wit to illude me into thinking that I'm falsely accusing you of anything. When I type long posts, people complain. When I type short posts, people complain.

When your response is "I don't have to because it's obvious", then you are lacking substance. There is no way around it.

Maybe you should read a fucking book

And even more annoying are people who actively engage the people who are actively engaging alma.

You have absolutely no idea what intolerant means, do you? Protip: It doesn't mean that you think you're right and someone else is wrong.

Alma, you still need to take my OBVIOUSLY sarcastic remark out of your sig and replace it with the accurate "Alma's stupidity knows no bounds". Now. Or I will come through this monitor and it will NOT be pretty.

Just don't leave marks.

The substance is in post 206, the other posts are references due to the inability of others to grasp 206. Yes, I could cut/paste and regurgitate post 206 58 times or I could just reference it. If you decide to choose the dumber of the two, that only shows your level of intellect.



I never said that it did, now did I?



You're confusing that with my application of the word bigot in the sense of this topic.



I never once said that and I even denied that accusation in the previous post. At this point, you're just throwing crap out there hoping that I will snag on it in order to change the subject into something that you can win.

Yes. When you said:



So I say again: You're an idiot.

You're making this too easy. There's a difference between being obstinate and being a bigot. Being a bigot consists of you being obstinate. Being obstinate doesn't make you a bigot. Intolerant is on the same level as bigotry. Both words were used in the definition of bigotry but not in discrimination. That's what allow them to be mutually exclusive.

Allegory claimed that bigotry is only acting against something, not for it. I countered his claim with the text you quoted that bigotry isn't one way. You can be bigoted for something as well, i.e. religion, politics and in this situation, homosexuality. That's the key difference between being obstinate vs being intolerable. In either case, they both fall under the word bigotry.

You took that APPLICATION of the word "bigot" and accused me of making it a definition of the word intolerant, while overlooking the word obstinate.