We will eventually want the real Dalight to stand up.
Is it the Dalight of post #39?
Bigotry is when you lose ALL perspective between understanding a person's character and lump them into a group. (Dalight, post #39)
Or, is it the Dalight of post #92, when she lumped several posters together into a group as having made certain statements:
If I expect folks to say no to words like Christ Killer, or crap like that, then letting YOU CALL people child rapists and then associate that with Glenn or Mitt as a reason to hate these people. (Dalight, post #92)
More ad hominen...this type using your "lumping several posters into a group" tactic, which you earlier defined as "bigotry."
(Is this more of your "bigotry for thee but not for me" approach?)
Since when have I labeled anybody a "child rapist?" But don't let that stop you from using the "you" word in referencing me to that comment.
This latest comment shows your twisted two-facedness again:
(a) Posts #39 & #92: If you perceive a poster "lumping" people "into a group"...they've supposedly failed to distinguish "a person's character" and the group -- and have apparently lost "ALL perspective" and are therefore guilty of "bigotry."
By your own admission you have failed to distinguish character among individual posters and see fit to lump us into an "anti-Mormon" group based upon statements not made by the group!
But when you do this exact same thing, no self-confessions arise from your keyboard that you are that "bigot" you've self-defined!
(b) Post #33:
You claimed there that "When someone attacks folks based on the criteria that they are a Mormon or a Jew or even a Muslim alone we call that bigotry. This is not part of rational discussion."
Yet what have your ongoing attacks vs. Tennessee Nana on this thread revealed?
It seems your attacks against Nana have been based upon one thing: Her religious comments about Mormons. So you've launched your "attacks...based on the criteria that they are" perceived anti-"Mormon."
If somebody is using solo criteria to critique, it seems you are saying...that's intolerable ("bigotry"). Yet it seems you likewise are using solo criteria -- only instead of "anti-Mormonism" it's your "anti-anti-Mormonism"...(Once again, you define yourself as being guilty of bigotry -- by your very own personal standards)
Wanna explain your religious license to be intolerant (bigoted) toward Tennessee Nana's (& other posters') religious beliefs? Why are you accorded freedom to exercise a solo criteria of an "anti-anti" position???...but an "anti" position comes under your condemnation?
Why isn't that so obvious to you (& all) that you are being two-faced on this?
(c) Then you claimed in post #33 that "I will not do it by BASHING someone for their faith. And, you shouldn't either." And yet what have you been doing throughout this entire thread but to bash & critique the deeply held religious beliefs of others? TN Nana's comments are religiously-based, are they not? And you've openly criticized her...and now you've criticized my religious beliefs as well. (May I remind you that "criticize," is another for "bash?") Which means you've bashed her and others. You've bashed our religious views.
I'll say it again: I always love it when a religious elitist comes on board these threads, gives "thou shalt" edicts like "Thou shalt not bash somebody else's faith" -- all after they've just bashed comments from other poster's religious faith.
So what do we do? Believe your "thou shalt" pulpit edicts? Or what you actually practice?
(d) And then we have yet another angle on this same comment you made above in post #39...further reinforcing your ripe inconsistencies: Bigotry is when you lose all perspective between understanding a person's character and lump them into a group. We are reasonably cautious about folks who belong to faiths like Mormonism especially when you consider some of the things in their teachings.
Why...we would think that if you don't like lumping religious folks into a group that you would have been even more prevalent on FR over the past decade, playing Superman to the Muslims due to the constant posts that tend to lump all Muslims into one group. Right?
Wrong-o, boy-o.
Here we might expect some consistency on this. Yet when asked, "On how many of those threads did you enter therein, and proceed to accuse 1-2 posters of being "bigoted?"
Thousands of such threads?
Hundreds?
Dozens?
A handful?
None? (Except this thread?)...
(I rec'd no response from you on this Q)
Rather inconsistent, aren't you? Here you've had a vast array of FREEPER posters at your very disposal that you could have elected to lecture re: your "thou shalts" about lumping a religious group together. Right? But no. Once again, it seems you utterly fail to apply evenly your lecture circuit tour.
Tell you what: I think right now you are tied for setting the FREEPER Religion section record for most two-faced comments in a single thread! (We just need one more from you to own the record all by yourself!)
There. Fixed!
In my years of posting on the RF, I doubt I have seen a more sanctimonious batch of posts that those posted by dalight who has consistently lectured others for bigotry while employing total bigotry in doing so.
This is quite an accomplishment...I think we need a brand new Inman badge just for this!
Also, remember to look at the post being replied to.. it helps in sorting our who the "you" refers to.
As for Nana, I went back in her history about 5 months.. and her posts were pretty consistent. I haven't taken the time to look at yours. You really don't interest me that much at the moment as you are seemingly a member of this pack.
We had to live with a pack like you in the threads for the candidate I really like, but fortunately, the leader of this group is gone an it is a blessing. I haven't bothered to figure out who is the leader of yours. I keyed in on Nana because she said something trollish, then I wondered who she was.