[~”Yeah, that’s why ‘bigot’ is a worthless taunt.”~
A bit like “cult,” it seems to me.]
No, the word cult is not self referential, you cannot even form a similar sentence to the one I did above. That is: A cultist against cults is not by definition a cultist (they would be an anti-cultist). But of course, you have no clue about self referential statements, so I am again preaching to the brick.
FC:~”Here I have forced someone into professing they would not be bigoted against Satanists, and they see no absurdity in that.”~
TB:Then you need to learn the correct definition of the term. I have it posted above for your convenient reference.
You have stated that you would not be intolerant of Satanists (i.e., you are tolerant of Satanists, to remove the double negative). You can slice and dice your definitions any way you want, but I am intolerant of Satanists and you are not. I will never in a million eternities vote for a Satanist, while you would. Anyone not under the influence of a psychotropic drug realizes that that is an asinine position for you to take. But please, prove my points.
And stop with the “Best Regards” bit, you’ve already sent me enough ill will my way to make that false. At least be man enough to admit you don’t wish me the best at all. Unless all you can do is spin to hide your true views, like Romney.
~”No, the word cult is not self referential...”~
No, but it is a worthless taunt. Do try to keep up.
But along those lines, you are making an interesting claim when you say I am a member of a cult, given your own cult membership. That is, of course, using the strictly denotative definition of the term.
~”You have stated that you would not be intolerant of Satanists”~
You betcha. They are wrong, but what good does it do either them or me to hate them? How does that persuade them to change?
Now, one thing I would wonder were there a Satanist politician is how said belief system might inform such a person’s policy decisions. Since I can’t imagine good results in that situation, I probably wouldn’t support such a candidate.
You can’t credibly say the same thing with regards to Romney, since he by and large supports the same social values you do. You just don’t like Mormons. Oh, you try to dress that simple fact up in all sorts of ways to make it seem more palatable; but that is the fundamental factor that drives your animus against him.
I can’t blame you, really; it must be frustrating to be surrounded with people you don’t like and not be able to say anything about it. FR, it seems, has become your personal pressure relief valve. I suppose that’s healthy in some ways.
~”And stop with the “Best Regards” bit, you’ve already sent me enough ill will my way to make that false. At least be man enough to admit you don’t wish me the best at all.”~
See, that is an example of projection, FC. I must admit I have fun exposing your prejudices and egging you on until you embarass yourself with them, and this is probably a less than charitable thing for me to do. But, outside of your relentless attacks against the faith that I hold dear, I really have nothing against you personally.
And I do wish you the best; I don’t think anybody is beyond redemption - fortunately for me.
~”Unless all you can do is spin to hide your true views, like Romney.”~
Nah, I’m about as straight a shooter as they come. I’m here to learn, not convince or trick; therefore, I’ve no reason to hide or spin anything. You keep teaching me new things, so I greatly enjoy our conversations.
Best regards!
And... Go Mitt!