🚀 go-pugleaf

On 2007-01-01 13:51:45 -0600, Merlin Dorfman <dorfman@green.rahul.net> said:

> 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."

Note that your example places the conditional clause in the front of 
the sentence, establishing the subsequent assertion as conditional. On 
the other hand, you started with a very bold assertion, then followed 
it with a qualifier. You are one stupid son-of-a-bitch if you don't see 
the difference. :-)




> 
>>>>> (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.

No, racist is not a subset of bigot; it's just that the subset of 
racists who are not bigots is vanishingly small. It is possible for 
sincerely believe that one race is superior to another, but be fully 
aware that any given individual should be exempt from prejudice, and 
that the race as a whole, while inferior, should be tolerated. And, for 
sure, it is possible to portray bigotry against dog-owners, but one 
would have to be not only prejudiced, but also intolerant. Your 
conflation of racism and bigotry is not unlike another poster on this 
group conflating the Jewish people and the state of Israel.