Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up"

[paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk]

> Again, MY definition of a "bigot" is the correct one which is
> most understood by modern people.
> 
> A "bigot" is a racist, period.

I would have to differ with you there Dr. Grubor, although I think 
the term Bigot being applied critically to your opinions is 
inappropriate.

> > I see nothing that limits bigotry to racial intolerance.
> > 
> 
> You are a fool then.  Religion and sexism and groups all have nothing
> to do with bigotry.  A bigot is a racist, period.  That is TODAY'S
> correct definition of the term, and I am a lot more current than
> Webster.  Any anybody who has a "religion" and "prays" is a fool.
> The only god you will ever find is within yourself.

I do not begin to believe this is correct.  I happen to believe that 
sexism, not in the sense of believing women inferior but in the sense 
of believing homosexuals inferior can be, in some instances, a form 
of bigotry but it is merely a matter of semantics and not of 
interest.

I wholeheartedly agree with the last point, anybody who believes in 
any form of deity or higher being (call it god if you like) is, IMHO, 
a fool. However, this has proven in history to be contradicted on a 
number of occasions, for example, Albert Einstein was a Jew but did 
not just accept without enquiry, rather, his religious views were 
subtle and well thought through. This is, of course, the exception 
not the rule, and 99.9999% of all religious people are fools.

 
> > > It is very logical and wise to discriminate on the basis of sex.

Here I can agree, I personally discriminate on the basis of sex, not 
in that I believe women inferior to men but rather that I believe 
each sex better suited to different tasks and vocations.
That is not, however, to say that I believe women should be prevented 
from taking up lines of work that men traditionally hold.
They are free to do so, but as in the example you give later 
I would feel uncomfortable having my car serviced by a woman.

> > Most would disagree, and decide based on that and other statements you
> > have made that you must be an extremely unpleasant person.
> > 
> 
> See, there you go again, attacking the person, instead of the
> argument.  You lose points for that.  Sexism is GOOD and right and
> justified.  I want a woman cutting my hair, and a man fixing my car,
> and I demand the correct sex for ALL activities.

Exactly, the poster has failed to recognise that you have every right 
to discrimate as you do and are justified in doing so. They are 
probably either homosexual and feel threatened or they are censorous 
and feel they must protect people from being "defamed" etc...
 
> > If you want to fight censorship effectively, going around telling
> > people "You're a shit-eating faggot you fucking cock-sucking homo
> > censor" in public forums is not going to win you many points.
> 
> Look sonny, I am not out to win any points.  I have two Doctorates and
> 22 years of experience.   I speak with authority and only to those who
> have the intelligence to understand.   I was a perfect 4.00 in
> College, and am probably the most intelligent body-politic analyst in
> the world.  Now let's face it:  Faggots are BAD news.  They are most
> always censors!  And that is the truth you can never get around.

I agree, I have no prejudice against homosexuals. Rather I have 
formulated a low opinion of them as a group due to their censorous 
behaviour. I think it is because they feel threatened by straight 
people.

 

  Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security
       Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk
  Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org    
       Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/
      Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1
     "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"