SW:TOR - No Homosexuality

[woges]

No, it's an ironic statement, that is bigot as described in the Oxford English Dictionary. It has others, like fanatics etc, but that is the most open def of the word.

 

[Prime Junta]

Bullshit. I suggest you invest in a good dictionary. Especially when your going to try and crucify someone else with the word. It makes you look like a dick when your a shinning example of the very same thing your accusing someone else of being.

I own several, as a matter of fact. Some of them disagree considerably with each other. And in any case, I've repeatedly stated that I'm perfectly willing to ditch the word "bigot" if you can suggest a better one that means "a member of a dominant group who is irrationally prejudiced towards a disadvantaged group."

By the way, do you think that "you are too!" makes for a good rebuttal to an accusation? Just curious.

Well you might want to wash your face off, you've got a little PC on it there.

Where, specifically?

I don't have to reconcile anything. I stated that its my opinion. I beleive its healthier for a child to have both a mother and father, meaning both a male and female rolemodel in their lives. The difference is that your not the biological parent and thus the child is in situation to maximize the best possible situation for the child in the future via adoption. That also means that you do not have any rights in regards to the child before becomming the parent (your strangers). There is no hipocrisy there.

There wouldn't be, if you were only applying these beliefs to your own life. However, you want to apply them to other people's lives -- specifically, lives of homosexual couples who want to start families with the same rights as heterosexual couples. This contradicts your other stated belief of wanting to maximize liberty for everyone as long as it does not infringe upon the liberty of other people. Again, how do you resolve this contradiction? I can't see how you can have it both ways, y'know.

 

[Rithrandil]

Such as...?

Pedophiles. Arsonists. People who like Michael Moore (Kidding! Kind of.)

"I think Pedophiles should be dragged out into the street and shot." != "I think black people should be dragged out into the street and shot." Same goes for KKK members, etc etc etc.

 

[DArtagnan]

"a member of a dominant group who is irrationally prejudiced towards a disadvantaged group."

We don't necessarily need a word for that. You just described what you mean, so let's go with that.

So - how am I being irrationally prejudiced towards a disadvantaged group, what dominant group am I a member of, and how is the group I'm prejudiced towards disadvantaged?

 

[Prime Junta]

There IS a definition.

You got your capitals wrong: there is A definition. Many definitions, in fact.

You might not accept the definition, but it's there.

I'm totally willing to accept your definition for the purposes of this discussion. However, we still need words to describe the concepts I defined above, in order to discuss them. I won't accept a definition that conflates the two, because that makes it impossible to discuss the point I'm making.

I'm afraid I can't proceed in a debate with a person who denies that official definitions of words exist. Actually, if the rule with you is that official definitions aren't even relevant, then there's another reason I can't proceed.

It's a simple statement of fact, DArtagnan. English doesn't have a universal authority that makes and enforces official definitions. I don't think it ever did. Some languages did -- Finnish, for example -- but most of those were scrapped about 30-40 years ago, when linguistics shifted from the prescriptive to the descriptive approach.

That would be too much work and I would never be able to understand you, and you'd never be able to understand me.

Language is imperfect, on that we agree, but if we don't do our best to use the established meanings of words - then we'd have to communicate using psychic powers and empathy. We can't do that.

No, we don't. We can simply use the words as best we can, and whenever we discover that we disagree about a definition, we can negotiate about the words and definitions we're using, in order to find ones that best express whatever concepts we're trying to express. This is what I've proposed, but for some reason you seem unwilling or unable to do that.

It's not about carving something in stone, because we can't. But without a common ground from which we can work - we have chaos and confusion. Not desirable when trying to comprehend our positions.

Exactly. I've suggested how we could reach that common ground -- by negotiating about words and definitions whenever it turns out that we're using a word in different ways.

It might be what Hitler felt was a good idea - but it cetainly isn't the only aspect of that ideology. His was a pretty extreme way of dealing with "racial inferiority" and not all Nazis agreed with him.

Of course it wasn't the only aspect of it. But it was a distinguishing characteristic.

Anyway, it's as faulty to say what Hitler did is all the ideology was about, as saying what other bigots have done is what bigotry is all about.

Again, we need to understand the core of our concepts before we can really get anywhere.

Exactly. I've explained my two core concepts, and why they're separate. I still think that "bigot" better describes one rather than the other, though:

"Mr. Mandelstein really hates Germans. What a bigot."
"Mr. Müller really hates Jews. What a bigot."

IMO the former usage doesn't quite fit, whereas the second one does. But, again, if you can suggest a better term, I'm all for it.

 

[Prime Junta]

We don't necessarily need a word for that. You just described what you mean, so let's go with that.

Cool. It's a bit wordy, though. I'll use IPTADG for short.

So - how am I being irrationally prejudiced towards a disadvantaged group,

I don't know. However, your usage of the words "natural" and "unnatural" when describing heterosexuality and homosexuality led me to believe that you thought heterosexuality was better than homosexuality.

If this is not the case, then you're not prejudiced against homosexuals.

If this is the case, we need to determine whether your prejudice is rational or irrational. Since I believe that there are no rational grounds to be prejudiced against homosexuals, I believe your prejudice would necessarily be irrational, ergo, you would be IPTADG.

what dominant group am I a member of, and how is the group I'm prejudiced towards disadvantaged?

Groups aren't prejudiced. Individuals are. Groups are privileged or disadvantaged.

I'm assuming you're heterosexual. That's a dominant majority relative to homosexuals, which are a disadvantaged minority. In other words, if you are a heterosexual, you are a member of a dominant majority. If you're homosexual, then of course you're not a member of a dominant majority, and my assumption was a mistaken one.

 

[DArtagnan]

It's a simple statement of fact, DArtagnan. English doesn't have a universal authority that makes and enforces official definitions. I don't think it ever did. Some languages did -- Finnish, for example -- but most of those were scrapped about 30-40 years ago, when linguistics shifted from the prescriptive to the descriptive approach.

What do you mean, universal authority?

I'm not talking about something being legally right or wrong - nor am I trying to impose official definitions upon you. If you want to use your own versions of words, rather than what has been established in the dictionaries - then that's your choice.

What I'm saying is, that if we're to have a fruitful discussion - we're going to need common ground. If you can't accept official definitions - then it's going to be too much hard work.

But now we're at a stage where you've managed to define what you actually mean by bigot - so let's pray we won't have too many similar cases where you don't want to use established meanings.

 

[Prime Junta]

Pedophiles. Arsonists. People who like Michael Moore (Kidding! Kind of.)

"I think Pedophiles should be dragged out into the street and shot." != "I think black people should be dragged out into the street and shot." Same goes for KKK members, etc etc etc.

I think I actually already addressed this a few posts up. In a nutshell, my substitution test reveals bias against a group. Sometimes, such as in the case of pedophiles, the bias is rational. Mostly, though, it isn't.

(I'd also propose that KKK members and Michael Moore fans aren't "groups" in the same sense as homosexuals, blacks, Jews, or WASPs are, because KKK membership or Michael Moore fandom aren't fundamental and difficult-to-change elements of identity the same way that race, language, religion, nationality, sex, or sexual orientation are.)

 

[Rithrandil]

Yes that is correct. However, that being said I could care less if gays married or had the same rights as married couples. My problem is that the definition of marriage being changed carries a whole pandora's box of pollitical fallout for the freedom of many other groups, especially religious. And in this case the government ends up dictating religion which is a very very VERY dangerous thing.

How does this harm your freedom or that of any religious person's? And it's not dictating religion. Religion has no place in the government or the law. Churches wouldn't have to perform gay marriage ceremonies if they chose not to.

As far as the family values thing, I'm only using that as a commonly identifiable label to indicate an alignment and not implying that gays do not have values within their family. Its only an indentifier in this case, nothing more.

Alright, well, I choose to label my side as the "non-homophobic" side then.

More the merrier implies that there could never be enough. For many reasons, a majority of homosexuals as a base of human interraction is a dangerous thing, especially the viability of the human race and its ability to propegate itself under normal circumstances. It also carries other social aspects that I believe would have a negative impact upon our society as a whole with a majority population of homosexuals. Call me a bigot all you want, but I honestly think that would be the truth of the reality.

What? It's not like homosexuals run around dragging people to gay conversion camps where they make you watch Richard Simmons and listen to boy bands. It'd just let people come out of the closet and live the way they want.

Local governments ban same sex marriage? Yes, if that is their will. See my above statements regarding the political fallout for changing the definition of marriage. It has nothing to do with discriminating againt homos, but with the implication it would have on the freedom of other groups and religious organizations. If it could be done without those implications, I'd vote for the homos to be allowed to marry.

Of course it has to do with discriminating against homosexuals. Can you name anyone who is against homosexual marriage who ISN'T a follower of an Abrahamic religion? So you're fine with local governments banning mixed-race marriages or heterosexual marriages, then? Once again, HOW does it affect any of your freedoms except the one to have bigoted ideas in control of the government?

Same sex adoption? I'd vote to not allow this. My personal belief about the development of a child and identity issues are my own reasons. And if this does not jive with yours, then tough. One more reason for a federalist system, then we can both be happy.

And even if your "belief" flies in the face of scientific studies? Hey, I'd prefer it if religious people didn't vote, but I'd fight against any sort of government law that would institute that.

Outlaw sodomy? No, I'd wouldn't try to outlaw it in any mutualy consenting situation of legal age.

Alright.

My home, my daughter, my life. If I don't want you there for any reason, you need to GTFO. Its called personal freedom and liberty. When I feel she is at an appropriate age to have exposure to such things, I will allow it. But I am the parent, and its my job to let influences into her life at appropriate ages so that she is not confused are distraught. Some parents get pissed if their kid is told their is no santa clause too early. Some parents don't want any type of sexual conotations introduced into their lives until a certain age. Kids favorite word in the world is 'Why?'. And even seemingly inocuous circumstances can cascade into inappropriate subject matter because of this word, subject matter that is beyond thier understanding.

Yet you want to restrict the rights of personal freedom and liberty for others. Once again, homosexuals aren't going to come into your house and have gay sex in front of your daughter. It's not society's job to make the outside world palatable for your specific religious group. If you want to keep your daughter locked up in your home until she's 18 that's your business, but the rest of society isn't going to alter itself to make your belief system easier.

Yet it happens alot and is on TV alot. Lets not forget to mention the gay militants who go out of their way to wage a war on religious organizations by raiding their services in gay mockery of their religion. Or how they incite and promote violence towards those who vote against their cause, like providing map quest maps to their homes on the internet!!! Lets be real, two guys holding hands on a park bench is not what most people are refering to when they talk about being 'in your face'.

And let's not forget about "gay bashing", people like Michael Sheppard getting brutally murdered, etc. What about the "God Hates Fags" guy? Michael Phelps? What about Rick Santorum, a fucking sitting U.S. Senator, comparing homosexuality to bestiality? What about Jerry Falwell saying God caused 9/11 because of homosexuals (and abortions)? I'm sorry, "gay militants" makes me laugh. There are those types of people out there but it is far, far, far more weighted towards YOUR side of this discussion.

I said that 'more the merrier' is not my desire. Stop with the homophobe crap you and all your other sock puppets espouse to denegrate those who have an opposing viewpoint. /sarcasm on : Oh Yes, I'm so scared I'm going to be kidnapped and turned gay, gee I hope I don't accidently forget to lock the door tonight. /sarcasm off.

You're the one who thinks gay marriage harms your freedom. So what the fuck are you talking about?

In my perfect world, gays have all the same consitutional rights that any other law abiding citizen has. Would I allow gays to serve in the military? Depends on if it would affect the morale of the general populace of the other soldiers. If it did affect them, then I'd weigh that the defense of our nation is more important than someone serving in the military. But there are other ways you could allow them to serve in the military and still contribute if thats what they want. As far as your other questions, I've already answered them.

So you want them to have the same constitutional rights but you want it to be okay for local governments to ban them getting married or adopted. Do you not know how the Constitution works, or what the 14th Amendment is?

And if you don't like what I have to say, then tough shit. Your only option at this point is acceptance of the reality that I am an individual who is entitled to my view and there is nothing you can do about it. So you can try and be peaceable and find middle ground, or you feel its my way or nothing, then you can go screw yourself. Up to you.

You are entitled to your view. I'm entitled to point out why your view is stupid. I don't have to find middle ground with you the same way I wouldn't try and find middle ground with a Klansmen.

 

[DArtagnan]

Cool. It's a bit wordy, though. I'll use IPTADG for short.

Whatever you want.

I don't know. However, your usage of the words "natural" and "unnatural" when describing heterosexuality and homosexuality led me to believe that you thought heterosexuality was better than homosexuality.

I thought I was being quite clear when I said I'd never encountered a being that I considered inferior or superior to myself. Wasn't I?

Groups aren't prejudiced. Individuals are. Groups are privileged or disadvantaged.

What has that got to do with anything?

I didn't say groups were prejudiced. That said, groups can potentially be prejudiced - as in if all members of a group are prejudiced, then the group as a whole is. Not that I was saying anything like that, though.

I'm assuming you're heterosexual. That's a dominant majority relative to homosexuals, which are a disadvantaged minority. In other words, if you are a heterosexual, you are a member of a dominant majority. If you're homosexual, then of course you're not a member of a dominant majority, and my assumption was a mistaken one.

I'm heterosexual.

That's the majority, yeah, but how are we the DOMINANT majority? The word dominant would seem to be redundant, unless you believe that we dominate homosexuals somehow. Maybe you're referring to what happens in a democracy?

 

[woges]

I don't think that's right about prejudice PJ. Some prejudice is group based ala group identity that is prejudiced against others. I also don't think it matters if an individual believes something subjective as sexuality is good/bad or not. If you believe a social identity as worse/inferior (any way round it doesn't matter (gay/straight or straight/gay) than you're likely to be described as a bigoted person, in the context as I understand it.

 

[JemyM]

YOU FAIL AT READING. NOT WHAT I SAID. (I'm just going to cut and paste this from now on every time you say I'm saying something I'm not saying. It saves me time).

Come on, I am not the only one here who have noted that many of your arguments are rooted in this false premise. If you didn't actually believe that homosexual was socialized rather than biologically driven, you wouldn't do as many mistakes as you do.

Uh no. If a church wants to perform a marriage on who ever or whatever they want, they can. It doesn't mean its binding. That is liscensed through the state.

When you said "ban same-sex marriage", I thought you meant banning religions right to have the kind of ceremonies they like to have.

Juridically, there's little sense to not having the same kind of benefit for same-sex couples as is available to the rest. Juridically "marriage" is about ownership regarding mutual possessions which plays a great role if there's a divorce or someone dies. One who really have family values, would also be concerned that children of homosexual parents have the same benefits and protection as children with heterosexual parents. Do you care about children?

The only result of having different laws to different couples and different children is more paperwork.

How am I inconsistent with family values, especially after I told you that my useage of the phrase was only used as an identifier because of its common association?

I decided to give you a bone for having a genuine care for families, but if you are just exploiting a word as a false rhetoric, I won't do it again.

And you want the village to raise the child. Personal freedom and liberty is about the individual, thus it by default is supporting myself, DUH. Trust me, my daughter will learn the real principals and history that my forefathers relied upon when drafting our U.S. Constitution and greatest government document in the history of the world. And I will do it proudly. Until the child is of discerning age, the parent has authority.

Are you REALLY not spotting the severe inconsistency in your statement? You speak about freedom and liberty about the individual, only to follow it up with the right to oppress a child.

Let me ask you; are you against the police? If your neighbor beats you up, do he have the personal freedom and liberty to do so? Is it your right to defend yourself in that situation? What if a gang of criminals rob your bank account, is it up to you to get your money back, or would you depend on the village to do so?

You do not understand or advocate freedom or liberty. Every tyrant who ever lived have wanted freedom for themselves!

I'm not trying to 'do' anything against him. I accept him for who he is and what he believes. I'm ok with that. Unfortunately, he doesn't accept me for who I am and what I believe. I understand freedom and liberty just fine, much more than the average american idiot that is programmed by our sham of a two party system.

No, you want to stop criticism. You are advocating censorship here rather than free speech. You demand not to give anyone else the right to criticize you. That's a solid anti-freedom agenda you got right there.

 

[Prime Junta]

What do you mean, universal authority?

An authority that creates "official" and universally accepted definitions for words, the same way the Language Bureau used to create definitions for Finnish words, for example. There isn't one for English, and never was.

I'm not talking about something being legally right or wrong - nor am I trying to impose official definitions upon you. If you want to use your own versions of words, rather than what has been established in the dictionaries - then that's your choice.

Dictionary definitions, even if accurate, are never complete. They often leave out nuances and connotations that words carry. Us non-native speakers sometimes get into trouble because of that -- we look up a definition, and the dictionary doesn't mention that the word carries a connotation, and then we end up using it in some silly way.

What I'm saying is, that if we're to have a fruitful discussion - we're going to need common ground. If you can't accept official definitions - then it's going to be too much hard work.

I'm willing to accept any definitions you propose for the purpose of this discussion, including the dictionary one that you quoted. In that case, however, I'll have to dump the word and find new ways to express the concepts I mean.

But now we're at a stage where you've managed to define what you actually mean by bigot - so let's pray we won't have too many similar cases where you don't want to use established meanings.

Why do you find it so unpleasant to refine definitions on the fly? Just curious. If you had been working with me rather than fighting me on this point, we could've gotten over this hurdle in about three messages.

"No, that's not what I mean by bigot. I mean 'someone who's irrationally prejudiced against a disadvantaged group.'"
"OK, then how about we use 'zigot' for that, and 'quigot' for 'someone who's prejudiced against a dominant group.'"
"Done. Moving on..."

 

[Rithrandil]

Your right. Hitler was a big fan of the darwin movement and especially Eugenics. America sterilized 50,000 people against their will and put out propeganda films in support of this action. Many fans of eugenics rejoiced at what America was doing and what Hitler began to move forward on. However, Hitler went very extreme and took it to the next level. At that point eugenics was revealed for what it really was and where that road eventually leads. Hitler's excersize in extermination brought the eugenics movement to a screeching halt.

DARWIN WAS NOT IN FAVOR OF EUGENICS. That is the most asinine idiotic religious argument ever. HE EVEN SAID HE WAS GLAD HUMANS HAD "BEATEN" NATURAL SELECTION.

 

[Prime Junta]

I thought I was being quite clear when I said I'd never encountered a being that I considered inferior or superior to myself. Wasn't I?

Consider the point made.

What has that got to do with anything?

Just trying to be maximally precise to avoid further misunderstandings. You used the phrase 'how is the group I'm prejudiced towards disadvantaged;' I'm pointing out that this is problematic since only individuals have prejudices.[/QUOTE]

I didn't say groups were prejudiced. That said, groups can potentially be prejudiced - as in if all members of a group are prejudiced, then the group as a whole is. Not that I was saying anything like that, though.[/QUOTE]

Actually, your exact words were "how is the group I'm prejudiced towards disadvantaged." If that doesn't imply that groups can be prejudiced, you *are* using language in a very strange way.

I'm heterosexual.

That's the majority, yeah, but how are we the DOMINANT majority? The word dominant would seem to be redundant, unless you believe that we dominate homosexuals somehow. Maybe you're referring to what happens in a democracy?

Heterosexuals are the dominant majority in that they both set the rules of the game and the discourse, and enjoy rights that homosexuals don't.

Democracy doesn't mean "tyranny of the majority," by the way.

 

[JemyM]

Based on Eugenics, Jews are high up on the ladder. Nazi-germany didn't consider Jews inferior to germans by biology, but by culture.

Hitler openly rejected evolution, such as in Hitler's Table Talk, 1942:

From where do we get the right to believe that man was not from the very beginning what he is today.

A glance in Nature shows us , that changes and developments happen in the realm of plants and animals. But nowhere do we see inside a kind, a development of the size of the leap that Man must have made, if he supposedly has advanced from an ape-like condition to what he is (now)

The "final solution" draws inspiration from a history of European antisemitism that was initiated with Christianity. The New Testament have a great amount of quotes like;

1 Thessalonians 2:14-16

14 For ye, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God which are in Judaea in Christ Jesus: for ye also suffered the same things of your own countrymen, even as they did of the Jews;
15 who both killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove out us, and pleased not God, and are contrary to all men;
16 forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they may be saved; to fill up their sins always: but the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.

Note that Nazi Germany also slaughtered gays.

 

[Rithrandil]

Based on Eugenics, Jews are high up on the ladder. Nazi-germany didn't consider Jews inferior to germans by biology, but by culture.

Hitler openly rejected evolution, such as in Hitler's Table Talk, 1942:


The "final solution" draws inspiration from a history of European antisemitism that was initiated in Christianity. The New Testament got a great amount of quotes like;

1 Thessalonians 2:14-16


Note that Nazi germany also slaughtered gays.

And Hitler was Catholic. As was a good deal of the SS.

 

[DArtagnan]

An authority that creates "official" and universally accepted definitions for words, the same way the Language Bureau used to create definitions for Finnish words, for example. There isn't one for English, and never was.

I'm aware of that, though

I suspect you knew that.

Dictionary definitions, even if accurate, are never complete. They often leave out nuances and connotations that words carry. Us non-native speakers sometimes get into trouble because of that -- we look up a definition, and the dictionary doesn't mention that the word carries a connotation, and then we end up using it in some silly way.

But I'm not talking about complete or 100% accurate definitions. It would be kinda silly to expect that.

Now, I'd say it's better to research the meanings of a word than going by your own personal opinion. That's kinda my point you know.

You're being a bit stubborn and pedantic when you talk about universal perfect definitions.

You know just as well as I, that we can't live without these definitions - and in the case of bigot - there are few and quite clear definitions - just as I laid them out. But if you insist on this thing about not being entirely complete, then so be it.

Why do you find it so unpleasant to refine definitions on the fly? Just curious. If you had been working with me rather than fighting me on this point, we could've gotten over this hurdle in about three messages.

Now now, let's not be unfair. I have the strong impression that you're not exactly working with me either - especially at first. So - the hurdle jumping facilitation could have originated from you as well.

The reason I find it unpleasant, is that I think it represents needless work. If you'd have conceded right away that your understanding of bigot doesn't match any official definition, then we'd have defeated that hurdle you're talking about long ago.

 

[DArtagnan]

Consider the point made.

Good, thanks.

So, I'm not "a" IPTADG?

Just trying to be maximally precise to avoid further misunderstandings. You used the phrase 'how is the group I'm prejudiced towards disadvantaged;' I'm pointing out that this is problematic since only individuals have prejudices.

How is "I'm" not representative of me as an individual?

Actually, your exact words were "how is the group I'm prejudiced towards disadvantaged." If that doesn't imply that groups can be prejudiced, you *are* using language in a very strange way.

How in the world would that imply anything about a group being prejudiced.

YOU are the one with a language issue here.

I'm talking about myself as an individual, which is why I said "I'm prejudiced towards" and not "My group is prejudiced towards".

Heterosexuals are the dominant majority in that they both set the rules of the game and the discourse, and enjoy rights that homosexuals don't.

Oh, so because there are more heterosexuals than homosexuals, we - by nature of the democratic society - dominate homosexuals?

I guess you're right. What alternative would you suggest to a democracy, though?

Democracy doesn't mean "tyranny of the majority," by the way.

Ehm, no, why would it?

 

[Prime Junta]

I'm aware of that, though

I suspect you knew that.

I didn't know that. What do you mean by "official" definition? Something that some doofus somewhere put in a dictionary?

But I'm not talking about complete or 100% accurate definitions. It would be kinda silly to expect that.

Now, I'd say it's better to research the meanings of a word than going by your own personal opinion. That's kinda my point you know.

It's a lot of work to research a meaning of a word. It's not just enough to look it up in a dictionary, you know -- you have to look it up in several dictionaries, look up many examples of usage in a variety of contexts, and eventually arrive at an understanding of what different definitions, connotations, and other baggage the word carries in a great variety of contexts. It's far less work simply to negotiate them on the fly, depending on context.

You're being a bit stubborn and pedantic when you talk about universal perfect definitions.

What, I'm being stubborn and pedantic when I'm pointing out the undisputed fact that there *are* no universal definitions -- never even mind perfect?

You know just as well as I, that we can't live without these definitions - and in the case of bigot - there are few and quite clear definitions - just as I laid them out. But if you insist on this thing about not being entirely complete, then so be it.

Actually, I most certainly believe we could easily live without dictionaries. People did, you know, for millennia. We have usage patterns we're familiar with, and we can refine them on the fly as we talk.

Now now, let's not be unfair. I have the strong impression that you're not exactly working with me either - especially at first. So - the hurdle jumping facilitation could have originated from you as well.

Sorry, DA -- I honestly tried to give you a fair shake. I simply found you very difficult to understand, because you use language in an unusual way: specifically, you use words that carry heavy connotations without (or so you claim) intending to transmit any of those connotations.

The reason I find it unpleasant, is that I think it represents needless work. If you'd have conceded right away that your understanding of bigot doesn't match any official definition, then we'd have defeated that hurdle you're talking about long ago.

Unfortunately, I *can't* concede that. The reason is that I don't believe there *are* any official definitions, in any reasonable sense of the word "official." I already conceded that my definition of "bigot" doesn't match your dictionary definition, and proposed that we use some alternative terms instead, to be able to express the concepts I want to express. If that's not good enough for you, then we really have hit an impasse.