by cofty 109 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Cofty,
I most certainly did not accuse you of bigotry from your OP. Please go back and read the first page. The word isn't even there. I responded to another post. My exact statement was this:
Frankly, though, the statement "keep religion at home where it belongs" is bigoted.
Ah, but the JW lady was making a choice.
Exactly.
You hit the nail on the head and in the 5 paragraphs that follow you don't address it.
Even in an identical situation we may tolerate one class or group differently from another.
Says who?
A similar thought experiment can be repeated with a vegetarian and a single meat dish
Why would anybody employ a chef who refuses to cook meat unless it was a vegetarian restaurant?
If, in the exact same situation, we are willing to accommodate certain groups but not others...
I'm not but I am all for being reasonable.
If we would not have gotten up in arms about a vegetation
I would. That would be even worse. The breakfast would have been an egg and a tomato!
I feel that had I used the word intolerance instead of the synonym bigotry we might not have gotten bogged down in definitions.
I have been discussing principles. You have been fixating on semantics.
I still don't get your point.
People should not allow their religious superstitions to interfere with the job they are getting paid to perform.
C - If you object to what somebody does because of what they are or what they believe, that is bigotry.
I did address it.
In Syria Muslims throw homosexuals from tall buildings because they believe that Allah requires them to do so.
I object.
Does this make me a bigot?
No, I already answered this, perhaps you missed a post.
If you object to what someone does because of:
that is bigotry.
You seem to be reading this statement as hinging on the actions of the person arising from what they are or what they believe rather than the modifier being on the subject (YOU). That is, you are reading it this way:
If you object to:
that is bigotry.
Taking that reading then, yes, it is patently false and absurd. I can appreciate seizing on an ambiguous modifier; but my many examples and refutations make plain my meaning, to modify the subject (you) not the object (someone).
Perhaps you have read what I have written and are being intentionally pedantic. If so, here is the same point with the modifier moved to ensure a misreading is not made:
I apologize that my writing was not more careful. It is not the first time, nor will it be the last, that I have employed an ambiguous modifier. Nevertheless, I really can't believe you didn't get my meaning after I addressed it the first time.
People should not allow their religious superstitions to interfere with the job they are getting paid to perform.
Wow, that took a lot to get to. You finally answered the question from the first page. Yes, you are a reasonable person and make reasonable accommodation for people including superstitions. No, you would not make reasonable accommodation for religious superstitions.
Do I understand you correctly, Cofty?
It is not the first time, nor will it be the last, that I have employed an ambiguous modifier
Yes your argument was ambiguous.
If I ordered a steak and all I got was a plate of onion rings because not only was the chef a veggie but she refused to cook meat for others to eat, I would object. Whether her reasons were religious or not would make no difference.
Some people think that calling their unreasonable behaviour "religious" somehow gets a free pass. It doesn't.
Wow, that took a lot to get to. You finally answered the question from the first page.
I have been consistently saying the same thing since the OP
Yes, you are a reasonable person and make reasonable accommodation for people including superstitions. No, you would not make reasonable accommodation for religious superstitions.
Why are you putting contradictory statements in my mouth?
If I ordered a steak and all I got was a plate of onion rings because not only was the chef a veggie but she refused to cook meat for others to eat, I would object. Whether her reasons were religious or not would make no difference.
Very fair point. And if you learned that the vegetarian had asked another person to make the steak and they misunderstood, would you still demand they be fired?
I am curious, do you agree with these statements, now that they have been better formulated:
if you learned that the vegetarian had asked another person to make the steak and they misunderstood, would you still demand they be fired?
I have never demanded anybody get fired. Straw man again.
I am curious, do you agree with these statements, now that they have been better formulated:
- If, because of who they are, you object to someone's action, that is bigotry.
- If, because of what they believe, you object to someone's action that is bigotry.
They are totally nonsensical questions and have no connection to anything I have said in this thread or elsewhere.
