JW Chef Refuses to Cook Black Pudding (page 8)

DogGone

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?
In Somalia 98% of women suffer genital mutilation because, as in 29 other Muslim countries, men believe that this is the will of Allah.
I object.
Does this make me a bigot?

No. This is a tedious restatement of what we have already agreed, on the same page, no less. If you object to what somebody does, that isn't bigotry. Shall we go through more and more examples?

I assume that the reason you are against genital mutilation and throwing homosexuals from tall buildings is because you morally object to the action itself and not simply because it is the will of Allah. If you supported throwing homosexuals from buildings generally and just objected when someone does it in the name of Allah, then that is both a monstrous morality and bigotry.

When white slave holders objected to black freeman having slaves they weren't objecting to slavery itself on high moral ground, but on bigotry. (1833 US Supreme Court). So, yah, I could call someone who is against slavery only when it applies to black slave holders a bigot.

I am intolerant of people holding slaves - not bigotry.

I'm only intolerant of black people holding slaves - bigotry.

I'm intolerant of killing homosexuals - not bigotry.

I'm only intolerant of killing homosexuals when it is done in the name of Allah - bigotry.

Do you disagree that if you object to what someone does BECAUSE of what they are, that is bigotry? That it is intolerance due to a dislike of a particular group? If we disagree on this point, and can't come to agreement, we aren't going to get out of this loop.

cofty

DogGone - You are the one being pedantic about definitions.

You made two statements as follows...

C - If you object to what somebody does because of what they are or what they believe, that is bigotry.

D - if you are intolerant to the beliefs and actions of someone you disagree with, that is bigotry

I have demonstrated that these are not true.

Do you want to retract these?

slimboyfat

I can't find any dictionary that makes such a distinction - that it's only bigotry when you dislike someone for what they are rather what they do. In fact Cambridge online dictionary states that a bigot is someone who, "doesn't like other people who have different beliefs or a different way of life".

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/bigot

cofty

SBF - Read it again slowly.

"doesn't like other people who have different beliefs or a different way of life".

cofty

Hating somebody because they are a Muslim = bigotry

Not liking anybody who inflicts FGM on young women not bigotry.

Disliking all JWs = bigotry

Objecting that the JW chef charges you for a full English but won't cook your black pudding not bigotry.

cofty

I can't find any dictionary that makes such a distinction - that it's only bigotry when you dislike someone for what they are rather what they do.

It is the very foundation of ethical relationships that we judge people on their actions and character rather than by which grouping they belong to.

DogGone

Cofty,

I retract D. It is poorly stated and you have demonstrated it is in complete error. I appreciate that you have pointed it out to me, thank-you.

I don't retract C. I don't see where you have addressed it and it is what this discussion turns on.

I agree with your second to last post about examples of bigotry and non-bigotry. We don't disagree there. You seem to be addressing SBF on objecting to people based on what they do. That is fine, not bigotry. I'm talking about objecting to what people do based on who they are.

cofty

I don't retract C. I don't see where you have addressed it and it is what this discussion turns on. - DogGone

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?

In Somalia 98% of women suffer genital mutilation because, as in 29 other Muslim countries, men believe that this is the will of Allah.

I object.

Does this make me a bigot?

cofty

I agree with your second to last post about examples of bigotry and non-bigotry. We don't disagree there - DogGone

Second to last post - Objecting that the JW chef charges you for a full English but won't cook your black pudding not bigotry. - Me

But when I objected to the chef refusing to cook black pudding in the OP you accused me of bigotry.

DogGone

Since my argument about point C is coming across as pedantic rather than essential it might be worth recapping why I find this to be an distinction for this discussion.

A severe sufferer of peanut allergies should not work at a Vietnamese restaurant. There is no reasonable accommodation in my opinion. One could, though, imagine such a person employed at a restaurant where there was an understanding they make everything but the one peanut dish on the menu. Perhaps a customer loves that dish and comes in for it. The chef tells another staff member that they have an allergy and asks them to make it instead. The staff member misunderstands and tells the customer they can't have the dish because the chef has a peanut allergy. It hits the papers and so on.

Now, we could imagine people saying that if you can't make the full menu you shouldn't have the job, fire that person. I get that, even if I view it as a massive overreaction to a trivial issue. If people started spouting off about how this peanut allergy guy was pushing his allergy on other people denying them their right to peanuts, that they were sick and tired of these peanut allergy people affecting society and they should ensure their allergies don't bother anyone else.... well, most people would view that as pretty intolerant. At least I would.

Ah, but the JW lady was making a choice.

Yes, true. But then let's agree that the central issue is not the right to a side dish. The issue is not about discriminating against the non-peanut allergic, the issue is not about an anti-peanut agenda being forced on others, and the issue is not about the inconvenience itself. The salient detail is that the issue arises from a religious conviction rather than something else. Even in an identical situation we may tolerate one class or group differently from another.

A similar thought experiment can be repeated with a vegetarian and a single meat dish, a person with a phobia about lobster handling a single seafood dish, or even a single dish requiring a microwave treatment and my friend and his view on wireless waves, etc. I suspect we will find even more people who find this intolerable. They might say, "Take your vegetarian agenda, your lobster phobia, your irrational EMR fear and leave them the heck at home."

But they weren't, in this scenario. They merely asked someone else to make the dish and it was misunderstood. Why can't we be reasonable and tolerant of each others in these matters even if we strongly disagree? We want people to tolerate us, after all.

This is why, at the beginning on page one, I asked Cofty if he was against reasonable accommodation in general or just when it came to religion. If, in the exact same situation, we are willing to accommodate certain groups but not others, then we are showing we have more tolerance for some groups than others. If it is belonging to a group that makes the action objectionable and not the event itself we have to look and see if there might be some intolerance at play. If we would not have gotten up in arms about a vegetation in the exact same misunderstanding scenario than perhaps we have an intolerance toward religion and toward people who are religious.

PS - I feel that had I used the word intolerance instead of the synonym bigotry we might not have gotten bogged down in definitions.

JW Chef Refuses to Cook Black Pudding

Share this