🚀 go-pugleaf

In ba.general Hal Burton <hal@burton.spam> wrote:
> On 2007-01-01 13:51:45 -0600, Merlin Dorfman <dorfman@green.rahul.net> said:

...
 
>>>>>> 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. :-)

     I'm happy to rephrase:
     If you believe it is in their nature rather than due to
circumstances, you are a double racist. 

>>>>>> (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. 

     I may be able to go along with that...the purpose of believing
one race is superior to another is to impose prejudicial behavior,
it is hard to believe that anybody could have such racist beliefs
and oppose prejuidicial behavior.

> And, for 
> sure, it is possible to portray bigotry against dog-owners, but one 
> would have to be not only prejudiced, but also intolerant. 

     I still disagree but I think we've taken this discussion about
as far as it can reasonably go.

> Your 
> conflation of racism and bigotry is not unlike another poster on this 
> group conflating the Jewish people and the state of Israel.

     I'm not seeing that at all...most Israelis are Jews but there
are many Jews outside of Israel.  The analogy is that most racists
are bigots but there are many bigots who are not racists?