🚀 go-pugleaf

In ba.general Hal Burton <hal@burton.spam> wrote:
> On 2006-12-31 20:20:52 -0600, Merlin Dorfman <dorfman@green.rahul.net> said:

>> In ba.general Hal Burton <hal@burton.spam> wrote:
>>> On 2006-12-30 23:35:15 -0600, Merlin Dorfman <dorfman@green.rahul.net> said:
>> 
>>>> In ba.general Hal Burton <hal@burton.spam> wrote:
>>>>> On 2006-12-28 10:08:19 -0600, Merlin Dorfman <dorfman@green.rahul.net> said:
>>>> 
>>>>>> In ba.general Hal Burton <hal@burton.spam> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2006-12-27 00:37:41 -0500, Merlin Dorfman <dorfman@green.rahul.net> said:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> most, but (1) it's not in their DNA to respond to a real or
>>>>>>>> perceived offense with anything but violence, and (2) many/most
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Finally, the truth slips out. You are racist. It was apparent enough 
>>>>>>> from your credulous acceptance of anything Israeli and rejection of 
>>>>>>> everything Arab, but one can't accuse another of being racist without 
>>>>>>> direct evidence. The funny thing about racists is, they always admit it 
>>>>>>> if given enough time to speak their minds.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> "In the DNA" is colloquial for "very deep in the culture."  If
>>>>>> this is to be a scientific discussion, I will avoid such 
>>>>>> colloquialisms.  Thank you for catching this.
>>>>>> It is very deep in the Arab culture to respond to any real or
>>>>>> perceived offense with violence.  Thus it is unlikely that they will 
>>>>>> implement a sustained campaign of civil disobedience or
>>>>>> passive resistance in the occupied territories of Palestine.  This
>>>>>> is unfortunate, because such a campaign would lead to an independent
>>>>>> Palestinian state, on terms that many if not most of them would find
>>>>>> acceptable, within a couple of years.
>>>>>> Again my thanks for calling me out on the inappropriate use
>>>>>> of this colloquialism.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> Apparently you've morphed from a racist to a bigot. One could say some 
>>>>> very unflattering things about Jewish culture or DNA, with about the 
>>>>> same degree of accuracy as your own statements. To be perfectly clear 
>>>>> what I mean: only bigots believe such statements to be accurate. And as 
>>>>> for your accusation that I'm racist in the opposite direction, you 
>>>>> should know that I have adopted a policy of not commenting on 
>>>>> Israeli/Palestinian affairs about two years ago, having finally come to 
>>>>> the conclusion that both sides are appalling. This is the closest I've 
>>>>> come to commenting about the situation since then, and my comments are 
>>>>> restricted to addressing you as a person.
>>>> 
>>>> Then you are a double racist if you believe "both sides are
>>>> appalling," if you believe it is in their nature rather than due to
>>>> the circumstances.
>> 
>>> You are fast with your accusations, aren't you? I must have hit a 
>>> nerve. I, for one, never blamed their appalling behavior on their 
>>> natures. I simply said they were appalling. You drew an incorrect 
>>> conclusion.
>> 
>>      I said "if," in fact I said it twice.  If you in fact do not
>> have both such beliefs, the statement is "inoperative".  There are many 
>> things I can accuse you of (justifiably) "if" certain conditions
>> hold.  If they do not hold, I would not make the accusations.

> While that is strictly true, you've chosen a very presumptuous way of 
> phrasing the statement. This phrasing is typically used when the 
> speaker has already concluded that the <if> clause evaluates to true.

     That's a presumption on your part  :-)
     If I can recall my basic English grammar from when I went to
elementary school before the Civil War, "if" takes the subjunctive
mood (?) when there is uncertainty and the indicative mood when it
is a statement of fact, e.g., "If Germany was (not "were") the
aggressor in World War II, then North Korea was surely the 
aggressor in the Korean War."


>>>> (BTW, what is the difference between a racist
>>>> and a bigot?)
>> 
>>> A bigot is one a prejudiced and intolerant person. A racist is one who 
>>> believes that a particular race is inherently superior to another. A 
>>> racist bigot is one who is prejudiced and intolerant based on his 
>>> belief that a particular race is superior to another.
>> 
>>      So a bigot is intolerant on some other basis than race or
>> ethnicity; or if on that basis, the person is both a bigot and
>> a racist.
>>      I'm not sure I agree.  If I'm prejudiced against bankers or
>> athletes or entertainment personalities, I'm not a bigot.  Only
>> if the prejudice is against some definable racial or ethnic or
>> religious group or some such.

> One can be bigoted against women, or old people, or dog-owners, or 
> surfers. And as you mentioned, one who is bigoted against a religious 
> group, say Mormons, isn't racist either.

     I still beg to differ.  Racist is a subset of bigot so I
don't see a situation where a racist is not a bigot.  Prejudice
against dog owners doesn't seem to me to be bigotry.