DogGone

Joined

• started 3 topics
• posted 193 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by DogGone

• 
  109

  JW Chef Refuses to Cook Black Pudding

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  sainsbury's has been forced to apologise after its jehovah's witness chef refused to serve a customer black pudding with his full english breakfast.alan mackay was stunned when he was told he could not enjoy the staple, made up of animal fat, blood and oatmeal, with his meal at the branch in arnold, nottingham.after receiving his incomplete dish the former police officer was told the black pudding would not be served because it was against the religious beliefs of the chef to do so....

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  DogGone

  Cofty, in my thought experiment with the vegetarian there would be only one meat dish. Are you honestly trying to understand me or are you just parsing my words for any hole to poke?
  
• 
  109

  JW Chef Refuses to Cook Black Pudding

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  sainsbury's has been forced to apologise after its jehovah's witness chef refused to serve a customer black pudding with his full english breakfast.alan mackay was stunned when he was told he could not enjoy the staple, made up of animal fat, blood and oatmeal, with his meal at the branch in arnold, nottingham.after receiving his incomplete dish the former police officer was told the black pudding would not be served because it was against the religious beliefs of the chef to do so....

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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?

  No, I already answered this, perhaps you missed a post.
  

  If you object to what someone does because of:

  1. what they are OR
  2. what they believe

  that is bigotry.
  

  You seem to be reading this statement as hinging on the actions of the person arising from what they are or what they believe rather than the modifier being on the subject (YOU). That is, you are reading it this way:

  If you object to:

  1. what someone does because of what they are OR
  2. what someone does because of what they believe
     

  that is bigotry.

  Taking that reading then, yes, it is patently false and absurd. I can appreciate seizing on an ambiguous modifier; but my many examples and refutations make plain my meaning, to modify the subject (you) not the object (someone).
  

  Perhaps you have read what I have written and are being intentionally pedantic. If so, here is the same point with the modifier moved to ensure a misreading is not made:

  • If, because of who they are, you object to someone's action, that is bigotry.
  • If, because of what they believe, you object to someone's action that is bigotry.

  I apologize that my writing was not more careful. It is not the first time, nor will it be the last, that I have employed an ambiguous modifier. Nevertheless, I really can't believe you didn't get my meaning after I addressed it the first time.
  
• 
  109

  JW Chef Refuses to Cook Black Pudding

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  sainsbury's has been forced to apologise after its jehovah's witness chef refused to serve a customer black pudding with his full english breakfast.alan mackay was stunned when he was told he could not enjoy the staple, made up of animal fat, blood and oatmeal, with his meal at the branch in arnold, nottingham.after receiving his incomplete dish the former police officer was told the black pudding would not be served because it was against the religious beliefs of the chef to do so....

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  DogGone

  Cofty,
  I most certainly did not accuse you of bigotry from your OP. Please go back and read the first page. The word isn't even there. I responded to another post. My exact statement was this:

  Frankly, though, the statement "keep religion at home where it belongs" is bigoted.
• 
  109

  JW Chef Refuses to Cook Black Pudding

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  sainsbury's has been forced to apologise after its jehovah's witness chef refused to serve a customer black pudding with his full english breakfast.alan mackay was stunned when he was told he could not enjoy the staple, made up of animal fat, blood and oatmeal, with his meal at the branch in arnold, nottingham.after receiving his incomplete dish the former police officer was told the black pudding would not be served because it was against the religious beliefs of the chef to do so....

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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.
  
• 
  109

  JW Chef Refuses to Cook Black Pudding

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  sainsbury's has been forced to apologise after its jehovah's witness chef refused to serve a customer black pudding with his full english breakfast.alan mackay was stunned when he was told he could not enjoy the staple, made up of animal fat, blood and oatmeal, with his meal at the branch in arnold, nottingham.after receiving his incomplete dish the former police officer was told the black pudding would not be served because it was against the religious beliefs of the chef to do so....

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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.
  
• 
  109

  JW Chef Refuses to Cook Black Pudding

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  sainsbury's has been forced to apologise after its jehovah's witness chef refused to serve a customer black pudding with his full english breakfast.alan mackay was stunned when he was told he could not enjoy the staple, made up of animal fat, blood and oatmeal, with his meal at the branch in arnold, nottingham.after receiving his incomplete dish the former police officer was told the black pudding would not be served because it was against the religious beliefs of the chef to do so....

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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.
• 
  109

  JW Chef Refuses to Cook Black Pudding

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  sainsbury's has been forced to apologise after its jehovah's witness chef refused to serve a customer black pudding with his full english breakfast.alan mackay was stunned when he was told he could not enjoy the staple, made up of animal fat, blood and oatmeal, with his meal at the branch in arnold, nottingham.after receiving his incomplete dish the former police officer was told the black pudding would not be served because it was against the religious beliefs of the chef to do so....

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  DogGone

  Cofty

  DogGone - Your only interest seems to be a desire to label me with a pejorative epithet.

  Then I have done a very poor job explaining myself, indeed. I can understand it, my rhetoric can read that way. But, it is because I don't think you are a bigot that I'm debating the point so strongly. If you were, I wouldn't bother, for what would be the point?
  
• 
  109

  JW Chef Refuses to Cook Black Pudding

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  sainsbury's has been forced to apologise after its jehovah's witness chef refused to serve a customer black pudding with his full english breakfast.alan mackay was stunned when he was told he could not enjoy the staple, made up of animal fat, blood and oatmeal, with his meal at the branch in arnold, nottingham.after receiving his incomplete dish the former police officer was told the black pudding would not be served because it was against the religious beliefs of the chef to do so....

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  DogGone

  Cofty, I'd appreciate a dictionary definition that makes the distinction you are drawing. It doesn't have to be identical, just one that presents it similarly to the way you do.

  A false dichotomy:

  A - If you dislike someone because of what they are that is bigotry

  B - if you object to what somebody does, that isn't

  You are missing options:

  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

  etc. etc. etc

  Why you are side stepping this point is beyond me. Hating a Muslim is bigotry, yes. Hating Islam isn't, true. Hating a Muslim wearing a head covering because you don't like having their religion shoved in front of you is bigotry. Firing a Muslim for wearing a head covering is intolerant. Firing a JW for not performing core work duties and serving customers, not bigotry. Calling for a JW to be fired because the origin of the misunderstanding was a religious belief is bigotry.

  You would make reasonable accommodation for my friend with the wifi nuttiness. I'd also make reasonable accommodation if there was more than one cook to handle an objectionable dish. I find that a reasonable compromise, you don't. We can agree to disagree. But choosing not to find reasonable accommodation because it is a superstition religion you don't agree with and that you want to see left at home is being intolerant to beliefs and practices you don't agree with.

  Refusing to employ a JW because their religion prevents them fulfilling their job description isn't.

  Totally agree. And if that were the situation under discussion, no problem. We have the statements made by the employer that it was a misunderstanding and that she wasn't trying to deny the customer his side dish, we have the statements of the disgruntled customer, we have invented narratives of what happened behind the scenes, we have people calling for her termination, and we have people calling for her termination because she should leave her religion at home. If we can't agree the last point is textbook bigotry we don't have enough common ground for a productive conversation on this topic.(Though I agree with you on the vast majority of topics)
  
• 
  109

  JW Chef Refuses to Cook Black Pudding

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  sainsbury's has been forced to apologise after its jehovah's witness chef refused to serve a customer black pudding with his full english breakfast.alan mackay was stunned when he was told he could not enjoy the staple, made up of animal fat, blood and oatmeal, with his meal at the branch in arnold, nottingham.after receiving his incomplete dish the former police officer was told the black pudding would not be served because it was against the religious beliefs of the chef to do so....

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  DogGone

  No, the evidence suggests that the fault was with the chef because the company fired her. That tells us something about who was doing what the company paid them to do.
  

  I didn't know she was fired. That would indicate she wasn't doing what the company paid her to do and that she may not have had an understanding with her employer. Where did you find that out?
  
• 
  109

  JW Chef Refuses to Cook Black Pudding

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  sainsbury's has been forced to apologise after its jehovah's witness chef refused to serve a customer black pudding with his full english breakfast.alan mackay was stunned when he was told he could not enjoy the staple, made up of animal fat, blood and oatmeal, with his meal at the branch in arnold, nottingham.after receiving his incomplete dish the former police officer was told the black pudding would not be served because it was against the religious beliefs of the chef to do so....

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  DogGone

  It's really simple. Objecting to who somebody is = bigotry. Objecting to what somebody does is not.
  

  We certainly disagree here, Cofty. I'll go with the dictionary definition and not the Cofty definition. It is why I gave the example of the gay pride parade (what someone does) over who they are (gay). Objecting to a gay pride parade is often bigotry, intolerance arising from the dislike of a group. It is not what you are objecting to, but why you are objecting that makes it bigotry. You can object to a parade because you hate the garbage, certainly not bigotry. If you object to a parade because you wish the gays would leave their gayness at home, well that is certainly bigotry.
  
  The attempts to limit accusations of directed bigotry, first to what someone is versus what they choose to be, and now to who someone is and not what they do, are not supported by any dictionary I've consulted.
  
  

  Those who want to wear a head covering like a turbin, a kippah, or a hijab do so.

  Yes but when you go to work your employer decides.

  Well, that is begging the question. Where I live, that is certainly not so.