Straw man (which is all that can be expected of you).
You called me a bigot. I specifically asked how, kindly using the criteria that you laid out. Only in your world is that a straw man. Again, just because answering the question will make you look foolish, doesn't make something a straw man. Answer the question concerning bigotry! Who is being intolerant of you and how?
As you blathered on about having a political movement, I assume that is what you consider to be the target of bigotry. How? Anyone who doesn't ACCEPT your political views is a bigot? So you're a bigot for not accepting mine? So everyone that won't conform to someone else's opinion is a bigot?
By misusing the term bigot to refer to any and all political disagreements, you strip it of any real meaning.
Intellectually backed into a corner, you revert to calling people "bigot", and then when called on your misuse of the language, you scream "straw man". What's next holding your breath?
I called you one, because you are one. I posted the definition. But, apparently you are unable to comprenhend it.
Only in your world is that a straw man.
In my world and everyone else's, except you own fantasy world. Here it is again: "So is drug use a race, religion, or political movement to you?" Incidentally, there are several religions that do use drug use as a central component of them, but that's irrelevant. One more time: I am not advocating drug use, I am advocating drug decriminalization, or at least an end to the drug war as presently fought. Placing me in a position to defend a position that I haven't taken is a straw man argument. I know you're not big on definitions posted from the internet (How's that Britannica been treating you lately?) but here it goes:
The Straw Man is a type of Red Herring because the arguer is attempting to refute his opponent's position, and in the context is required to do so, but instead attacks a position—the "straw man"—not held by his opponent. In a Straw Man argument, the arguer argues to a conclusion that denies the "straw man" he has set up, but misses the target [...]As the "straw man" metaphor suggests, the counterfeit position attacked in a Straw Man argument is typically weaker than the opponent's actual position, just as a straw man is easier to defeat than a flesh-and-blood one. Of course, this is no accident, but is part of what makes the fallacy tempting to commit, especially to a desperate debater who is losing an argument.source