What's wrong with being gay?

[Daedalus X]

This thread is a continuation of an off topic conversation from here.

First, I think that we all agree that it's important to promote understanding, respect, and equality for all individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation. Everyone should be treated with dignity and allowed to express their identity without fear of discrimination or harm.


Question for debate is LGTBQIA2S+ a harmless social contagion, or are there serious unintended consequences awaiting the individuals and societies that are going down this road?

[boatsnguitars]

Just as I said, and you denied: you equated them.

What is it that you claim I equate? Please be very clear what it is and how I do it. Perhaps I need to amend my thinking?
Or is this simply a distraction from your desire to have some people eradicated, like some would suggest a bigot might argue for?

This is why your stance doesn't seem consistent:
You have suggested to eradicate bigots. How is this not you being bigoted towards (one who is prejudiced against) those you feel are bigots (those that might make an LGBTQ+ persons life miserable due to their prejudice), or Republicans, Democrats or any other group a person (you or not) might determine to be bigots?
Way to much eradication taking place for my liking with no clear line about who we destroy, nor does it give them a chance to change their thinking like has taken place with homosexuality over the decades (without eradicating anyone).

Eradicating ISIS is not the same as eradicating LGBTQ+ people.

The meaning of the word doesn't change. The same act is taking place, just with different groups of humans. Your statement makes as much sense as saying that eradicating Republican is not the same as eradication Democrats. It would be the same though and I would appose both for the same reasons.

You seem to equate the two. I don't. I see them as entirely different.

Then please correct your thinking on the matter.
e·rad·i·ca·tion
/iˌradiˈkāSH(ə)n/
noun
the complete destruction of something

Whether ISIS is being completely destroyed or whether all Republicans are being destroyed (for example) doesn't change that fact that complete destruction is taking place.

So again, "I reject your notion for the eradication of people (those you deem bigots) same as I reject ISIS (only because you keep bringing the up) from eradicating anyone."

You continue to be fixated on the idea that if I call for the eradication of ISIS (a gang of complete jerks (I'd like to use stronger language) who cause untold suffering, pain and death to otherwise peaceful people), it is somehow equal to bigots calling for the eradication of LGBTQ+ people - who may be very nice, peaceful, pleasant people who cause no suffering, pain or death to others. It's worth noting that this juxtaposition is not new in philosophical discourse, as many prominent philosophers have delved into the ethics surrounding the eradication of harmful ideologies versus the eradication of individuals.

The viewpoint I've presented aligns with a broader philosophical perspective that distinguishes between confronting harmful ideologies and advocating for the eradication of individuals. In our quest to combat harmful ideologies, it is essential to uphold the principles of justice and human rights. While we may confront dangerous beliefs and actions, we must tread carefully when it comes to eradicating individuals.

Sure, it's a nuanced approach. This isn't limited to ISIS alone. It extends to other contentious ideologies like Nazism, which philosophers have dissected for decades. The differentiation between individuals who commit harmful acts and those who merely hold prejudiced beliefs is a central ethical concern. The question of how we address such ideologies while preserving human rights remains a complex ethical dilemma. I don't think it's always easy, but sometimes it is.

This same ethical principle applies to groups like Hezbollah and Hamas, where separating pro-Palestinian advocacy from harmful, anti-Semitic actions has been a subject of philosophical contemplation. Preserving the distinction between the ideological and the individual is a cornerstone of ethical reasoning, especially when addressing ideologies that perpetuate harm.

My perspective is that we need to address harmful ideologies while respecting the rights and dignity of peaceful individuals. Maintaining this distinction, as philosophers have discussed, is essential for navigating complex ethical questions surrounding the eradication of ideologies versus individuals. While you seem to be focused on my call for the eradication of dangerous people and ideologies, I have no illusions that there isn't a robust and complex conversation to be had at some point. However, I don't see a dilemma when a guy shoots a child dead in the street and celebrates. Do you?

To be more specific, I don't think your equivocating that my calling for the the eradication of one thing is equal to another group calling for the eradication of some other thing. They are not the same, though you could be reductionist and make it appear as if they are (as I did in the prior sentence). Yet, there is more nuance than this simplistic view, would you agree?

[Clownboat]

You continue to be fixated on the idea that if I call for the eradication of ISIS (a gang of complete jerks (I'd like to use stronger language) who cause untold suffering, pain and death to otherwise peaceful people), it is somehow equal to bigots calling for the eradication of LGBTQ+ people - who may be very nice, peaceful, pleasant people who cause no suffering, pain or death to others. It's worth noting that this juxtaposition is not new in philosophical discourse, as many prominent philosophers have delved into the ethics surrounding the eradication of harmful ideologies versus the eradication of individuals.

The viewpoint I've presented aligns with a broader philosophical perspective that distinguishes between confronting harmful ideologies and advocating for the eradication of individuals. In our quest to combat harmful ideologies, it is essential to uphold the principles of justice and human rights. While we may confront dangerous beliefs and actions, we must tread carefully when it comes to eradicating individuals.

Sure, it's a nuanced approach. This isn't limited to ISIS alone. It extends to other contentious ideologies like Nazism, which philosophers have dissected for decades. The differentiation between individuals who commit harmful acts and those who merely hold prejudiced beliefs is a central ethical concern. The question of how we address such ideologies while preserving human rights remains a complex ethical dilemma. I don't think it's always easy, but sometimes it is.

This same ethical principle applies to groups like Hezbollah and Hamas, where separating pro-Palestinian advocacy from harmful, anti-Semitic actions has been a subject of philosophical contemplation. Preserving the distinction between the ideological and the individual is a cornerstone of ethical reasoning, especially when addressing ideologies that perpetuate harm.

My perspective is that we need to address harmful ideologies while respecting the rights and dignity of peaceful individuals. Maintaining this distinction, as philosophers have discussed, is essential for navigating complex ethical questions surrounding the eradication of ideologies versus individuals. While you seem to be focused on my call for the eradication of dangerous people and ideologies, I have no illusions that there isn't a robust and complex conversation to be had at some point. However, I don't see a dilemma when a guy shoots a child dead in the street and celebrates. Do you?

To be more specific, I don't think your equivocating that my calling for the the eradication of one thing is equal to another group calling for the eradication of some other thing. They are not the same, though you could be reductionist and make it appear as if they are (as I did in the prior sentence). Yet, there is more nuance than this simplistic view, would you agree?

Do you call for the complete destruction of anyone that is a bigot towards LGBTQ+ peoples and do you still stand by these words:
"There is a danger: that bigots will make gay LGBTQ+ people's lives miserable. Therefore, Bigotry is the contagion that ought to be eradicated."

I so far cannot support you in any endeavor to eradicate people that have been called bigots, if that is still your stance. Let's see where we are at?
Should we eradicate the old neighbor lady if she is prejudiced against her trans neighbor? Let's pretend she continues to use the wrong pronoun on purpose. When is it ok to completely destroy this bigot of an old lady in your philosophy or is she safe from being destroyed? Thanks for your clarification.

You did ask a couple questions above and I don't want to ignore them:

However, I don't see a dilemma when a guy shoots a child dead in the street and celebrates. Do you?

This would seem to be a travesty, not a dilemma if I'm following you correctly.

Yet, there is more nuance than this simplistic view, would you agree?

I would agree that there are subtle differences when discussing virtually any view.

Did we destroy the old lady above, or is she still with us?

[boatsnguitars]

You continue to be fixated on the idea that if I call for the eradication of ISIS (a gang of complete jerks (I'd like to use stronger language) who cause untold suffering, pain and death to otherwise peaceful people), it is somehow equal to bigots calling for the eradication of LGBTQ+ people - who may be very nice, peaceful, pleasant people who cause no suffering, pain or death to others. It's worth noting that this juxtaposition is not new in philosophical discourse, as many prominent philosophers have delved into the ethics surrounding the eradication of harmful ideologies versus the eradication of individuals.

The viewpoint I've presented aligns with a broader philosophical perspective that distinguishes between confronting harmful ideologies and advocating for the eradication of individuals. In our quest to combat harmful ideologies, it is essential to uphold the principles of justice and human rights. While we may confront dangerous beliefs and actions, we must tread carefully when it comes to eradicating individuals.

Sure, it's a nuanced approach. This isn't limited to ISIS alone. It extends to other contentious ideologies like Nazism, which philosophers have dissected for decades. The differentiation between individuals who commit harmful acts and those who merely hold prejudiced beliefs is a central ethical concern. The question of how we address such ideologies while preserving human rights remains a complex ethical dilemma. I don't think it's always easy, but sometimes it is.

This same ethical principle applies to groups like Hezbollah and Hamas, where separating pro-Palestinian advocacy from harmful, anti-Semitic actions has been a subject of philosophical contemplation. Preserving the distinction between the ideological and the individual is a cornerstone of ethical reasoning, especially when addressing ideologies that perpetuate harm.

My perspective is that we need to address harmful ideologies while respecting the rights and dignity of peaceful individuals. Maintaining this distinction, as philosophers have discussed, is essential for navigating complex ethical questions surrounding the eradication of ideologies versus individuals. While you seem to be focused on my call for the eradication of dangerous people and ideologies, I have no illusions that there isn't a robust and complex conversation to be had at some point. However, I don't see a dilemma when a guy shoots a child dead in the street and celebrates. Do you?

To be more specific, I don't think your equivocating that my calling for the the eradication of one thing is equal to another group calling for the eradication of some other thing. They are not the same, though you could be reductionist and make it appear as if they are (as I did in the prior sentence). Yet, there is more nuance than this simplistic view, would you agree?

Do you call for the complete destruction of anyone that is a bigot towards LGBTQ+ peoples and do you still stand by these words:
"There is a danger: that bigots will make gay LGBTQ+ people's lives miserable. Therefore, Bigotry is the contagion that ought to be eradicated."

I so far cannot support you in any endeavor to eradicate people that have been called bigots, if that is still your stance. Let's see where we are at?
Should we eradicate the old neighbor lady if she is prejudiced against her trans neighbor? Let's pretend she continues to use the wrong pronoun on purpose. When is it ok to completely destroy this bigot of an old lady in your philosophy or is she safe from being destroyed? Thanks for your clarification.

You did ask a couple questions above and I don't want to ignore them:

However, I don't see a dilemma when a guy shoots a child dead in the street and celebrates. Do you?

This would seem to be a travesty, not a dilemma if I'm following you correctly.

Yet, there is more nuance than this simplistic view, would you agree?

I would agree that there are subtle differences when discussing virtually any view.

Did we destroy the old lady above, or is she still with us?

1. I think bigotry ought to be eradicated. I don't know how, but I imagine through education. (or genetic manipulation?)
2. I think bigots that cause suffering ought to be dealt with in an appropriate manner that fits the level of suffering they impose. Whether that includes killing depends on the bigot. An ISIS bigot who has thrown gay people from the roof deserves death. A bigot who drags a gay boy behind his truck and leaves him to die on a barbed wire fence, deserves death. An old lady who clutches her purse when she sees a Black man, ought to be educated. An old lady who doesn't use the right pronoun: education - then eradicated... /jk

Give me another example and I'll address that.

[Clownboat]

1. I think bigotry ought to be eradicated. I don't know how, but I imagine through education. (or genetic manipulation?)

I think that murder and rape should be eradicated. I would not support the destruction of a person solely because they are being called a murderer though. 'Bigot' as you know gets thrown around as a term unlike the defined term murderer and is therefore why I have been opposing the destruction of someone because someone else has labeled them a bigot.
As I have said, your stance lacks consistency IMO.

2. I think bigots that cause suffering ought to be dealt with in an appropriate manner that fits the level of suffering they impose.

I think that murderers and rapist should be held accountable to the laws we have passed as a society. Again, bigot gets thrown around fast and loose all the time, unlike murderer. Anyone can be a bigot if I feel they are acting like a bigot. No matter what I 'feel', my feelings cannot cause someone to be a murderer. So I must oppose anyone that would seek to destroy a person for being called a bigot or for being a bigot.

Let's say we agree that person X is a bigot and they killed a homosexual person.
Their bigotry cannot and should not ever be the crime. People should be free to feel as they see fit. As I said before, actions have consequences and murder would be the action that we would punish, not there feelings about homosexual people even if you and I agree their feelings are bigoted. I just can't get behind this.

Whether that includes killing depends on the bigot.

I would find it to be a great evil if we killed people for how they feel. I should be free to hate Christians (I don't by the way) for being Christians. Christians could even label me accurately as being a bigot for having said feelings. They could tell other Christians about how I feel about them or words I have used against them. However, if they killed me for being a bigot, it would be them that committed the evil, not me the bigot in this example.

The gods are the punishers for thought crimes (they'll get you in hell) and I do not think society should seek to be like the gods when it comes to what people think.

An ISIS bigot who has thrown gay people from the roof deserves death.

Not because they are a bigot, but because they committed the act of murder.

A bigot who drags a gay boy behind his truck and leaves him to die on a barbed wire fence, deserves death.

Because they dragged a gay boy behind their truck, right? Not because they have bigoted feelings. Right? You keep referring to the action of murder as being the same as having bigoted feelings when they are not in the same ball park. This worries me.

An old lady who clutches her purse when she sees a Black man, ought to be educated.

About what specifically?

[oldbadger]

Let's say we agree that person X is a bigot and they killed a homosexual person.

I would call that person a murderer first, and possibly even a terrorist.

[/quote]

[boatsnguitars]

1. I think bigotry ought to be eradicated. I don't know how, but I imagine through education. (or genetic manipulation?)

I think that murder and rape should be eradicated. I would not support the destruction of a person solely because they are being called a murderer though. 'Bigot' as you know gets thrown around as a term unlike the defined term murderer and is therefore why I have been opposing the destruction of someone because someone else has labeled them a bigot.
As I have said, your stance lacks consistency IMO.

2. I think bigots that cause suffering ought to be dealt with in an appropriate manner that fits the level of suffering they impose.

I think that murderers and rapist should be held accountable to the laws we have passed as a society. Again, bigot gets thrown around fast and loose all the time, unlike murderer. Anyone can be a bigot if I feel they are acting like a bigot. No matter what I 'feel', my feelings cannot cause someone to be a murderer. So I must oppose anyone that would seek to destroy a person for being called a bigot or for being a bigot.

Let's say we agree that person X is a bigot and they killed a homosexual person.
Their bigotry cannot and should not ever be the crime. People should be free to feel as they see fit. As I said before, actions have consequences and murder would be the action that we would punish, not there feelings about homosexual people even if you and I agree their feelings are bigoted. I just can't get behind this.

Whether that includes killing depends on the bigot.

I would find it to be a great evil if we killed people for how they feel. I should be free to hate Christians (I don't by the way) for being Christians. Christians could even label me accurately as being a bigot for having said feelings. They could tell other Christians about how I feel about them or words I have used against them. However, if they killed me for being a bigot, it would be them that committed the evil, not me the bigot in this example.

The gods are the punishers for thought crimes (they'll get you in hell) and I do not think society should seek to be like the gods when it comes to what people think.

An ISIS bigot who has thrown gay people from the roof deserves death.

Not because they are a bigot, but because they committed the act of murder.

A bigot who drags a gay boy behind his truck and leaves him to die on a barbed wire fence, deserves death.

Because they dragged a gay boy behind their truck, right? Not because they have bigoted feelings. Right? You keep referring to the action of murder as being the same as having bigoted feelings when they are not in the same ball park. This worries me.

An old lady who clutches her purse when she sees a Black man, ought to be educated.

About what specifically?

A neighbor who posts a Bible verse in his lawn about stoning gay people, knowing his gay neighbors have to see it every day.
A fundamentalist woman who berates her gay daughter every day to the point that she commits suicide.
A racist mayor who passes legislation that subtley and legally harms Black people.
A group of racists who defend a statue of a slave owner and known racist, when Black people have made it clear that it makes them uncomfortable.
A teacher who favors her white students.
A person who hates Mexicans votes for a Senator that wants to pass laws against People of Color.
A group of politicians who work together to enact white-favorable laws.
A judge who imposes harsher penalties on PoC, robbing them of time with their children - then claiming that PoC people don't raise their children.
A group of individuals who engage in racially motivated hate crimes, physically assaulting people from different racial backgrounds, sometimes leading to severe injuries or fatalities.
A healthcare provider who refuses to treat a transgender patient, resulting in a delay in medical care and potentially worsening the patient's health.
A vigilante who targets and harms immigrants, believing that their actions are protecting their community, but leading to injury or death for innocent people.
A religious leader who preaches intolerance against a particular faith, inciting violence against members of that faith and potentially causing harm or fatalities.
A police officer who uses excessive force against peaceful protestors advocating for racial justice, resulting in injuries or casualties among the protestors.
A prison system that disproportionately places people of color in dangerous and overcrowded conditions, increasing the risk of violence and harm within the system.
A doctor who sterilizes women without their consent, disproportionately targeting women from marginalized communities, causing irreversible physical and emotional harm.
A hate group that actively plans and carries out terrorist attacks targeting specific religious or ethnic groups, leading to loss of life and widespread fear.
A hate speech event that escalates into a violent clash between opposing groups, resulting in injuries and sometimes deaths due to the propagation of hatred.
A homeowner who booby-traps their property to harm or kill trespassers, particularly targeting marginalized communities, causing severe injuries or fatalities.
A hiring manager who unconsciously discriminates against job applicants with non-Western-sounding names, resulting in fewer opportunities for individuals from diverse backgrounds.
A television network that consistently portrays people with disabilities as objects of pity or inspiration, reinforcing harmful stereotypes and limiting their representation in the media.
A group of friends who use derogatory language and racial slurs in private conversations, contributing to a culture of racism and prejudice even if it's not publicly visible.
A store owner who refuses service to customers based on their religion, leading to a divisive and hostile environment in the community.
A school principal who downplays incidents of bullying based on sexual orientation, creating an unsafe and hostile environment for LGBTQ+ students.
A healthcare system that provides inferior care to patients of color, resulting in disparities in health outcomes and perpetuating systemic racism.
A landlord who systematically denies housing to tenants with disabilities, making it challenging for them to find accessible and affordable living accommodations.
A police officer who racially profiles individuals, leading to unjust arrests and a breakdown of trust between law enforcement and marginalized communities.
A company that pays women lower salaries than their male counterparts for the same job, contributing to the gender pay gap and workplace inequality.
A news outlet that promotes xenophobic narratives, influencing public opinion and shaping the way society views immigrants and refugees.
A coach who discriminates against LGBTQ+ athletes, fostering an unwelcoming atmosphere on sports teams and hindering the development of young talent.
A landlord who evicts tenants who speak out against unfair housing practices, perpetuating a culture of silence and fear in marginalized communities.

[Clownboat]

A neighbor who posts a Bible verse in his lawn about stoning gay people, knowing his gay neighbors have to see it every day.
A fundamentalist woman who berates her gay daughter every day to the point that she commits suicide.
A racist mayor who passes legislation that subtley and legally harms Black people.
A group of racists who defend a statue of a slave owner and known racist, when Black people have made it clear that it makes them uncomfortable.
A teacher who favors her white students.
A person who hates Mexicans votes for a Senator that wants to pass laws against People of Color.
A group of politicians who work together to enact white-favorable laws.
A judge who imposes harsher penalties on PoC, robbing them of time with their children - then claiming that PoC people don't raise their children.
A group of individuals who engage in racially motivated hate crimes, physically assaulting people from different racial backgrounds, sometimes leading to severe injuries or fatalities.
A healthcare provider who refuses to treat a transgender patient, resulting in a delay in medical care and potentially worsening the patient's health.
A vigilante who targets and harms immigrants, believing that their actions are protecting their community, but leading to injury or death for innocent people.
A religious leader who preaches intolerance against a particular faith, inciting violence against members of that faith and potentially causing harm or fatalities.
A police officer who uses excessive force against peaceful protestors advocating for racial justice, resulting in injuries or casualties among the protestors.
A prison system that disproportionately places people of color in dangerous and overcrowded conditions, increasing the risk of violence and harm within the system.
A doctor who sterilizes women without their consent, disproportionately targeting women from marginalized communities, causing irreversible physical and emotional harm.
A hate group that actively plans and carries out terrorist attacks targeting specific religious or ethnic groups, leading to loss of life and widespread fear.
A hate speech event that escalates into a violent clash between opposing groups, resulting in injuries and sometimes deaths due to the propagation of hatred.
A homeowner who booby-traps their property to harm or kill trespassers, particularly targeting marginalized communities, causing severe injuries or fatalities.
A hiring manager who unconsciously discriminates against job applicants with non-Western-sounding names, resulting in fewer opportunities for individuals from diverse backgrounds.
A television network that consistently portrays people with disabilities as objects of pity or inspiration, reinforcing harmful stereotypes and limiting their representation in the media.
A group of friends who use derogatory language and racial slurs in private conversations, contributing to a culture of racism and prejudice even if it's not publicly visible.
A store owner who refuses service to customers based on their religion, leading to a divisive and hostile environment in the community.
A school principal who downplays incidents of bullying based on sexual orientation, creating an unsafe and hostile environment for LGBTQ+ students.
A healthcare system that provides inferior care to patients of color, resulting in disparities in health outcomes and perpetuating systemic racism.
A landlord who systematically denies housing to tenants with disabilities, making it challenging for them to find accessible and affordable living accommodations.
A police officer who racially profiles individuals, leading to unjust arrests and a breakdown of trust between law enforcement and marginalized communities.
A company that pays women lower salaries than their male counterparts for the same job, contributing to the gender pay gap and workplace inequality.
A news outlet that promotes xenophobic narratives, influencing public opinion and shaping the way society views immigrants and refugees.
A coach who discriminates against LGBTQ+ athletes, fostering an unwelcoming atmosphere on sports teams and hindering the development of young talent.
A landlord who evicts tenants who speak out against unfair housing practices, perpetuating a culture of silence and fear in marginalized communities.

I see your description of many crimes being committed and I'm not sure how to respond nor why it was provided to be honest.

Again, I'm all for enforcing laws. I'm against destroying people for simply being bigoted though. If a bigot were to act on their bigoted thoughts, then a crime is likely being committed and their bigoted thoughts are irrelevant and they will be judged by their actions/crimes.

So why the fuss on if someone might be a bigot? They might hate white people or they might hate homosexuals and they should be free to hold such feelings IMO (not act unlawfully though). I had bigoted feelings towards homosexuals many decades ago when I was a Christian (no crimes committed). Thankfully I was not destroyed and grew up to amend my thoughts and I'm no longer bigoted towards such individuals.

[boatsnguitars]

A neighbor who posts a Bible verse in his lawn about stoning gay people, knowing his gay neighbors have to see it every day.
A fundamentalist woman who berates her gay daughter every day to the point that she commits suicide.
A racist mayor who passes legislation that subtley and legally harms Black people.
A group of racists who defend a statue of a slave owner and known racist, when Black people have made it clear that it makes them uncomfortable.
A teacher who favors her white students.
A person who hates Mexicans votes for a Senator that wants to pass laws against People of Color.
A group of politicians who work together to enact white-favorable laws.
A judge who imposes harsher penalties on PoC, robbing them of time with their children - then claiming that PoC people don't raise their children.
A group of individuals who engage in racially motivated hate crimes, physically assaulting people from different racial backgrounds, sometimes leading to severe injuries or fatalities.
A healthcare provider who refuses to treat a transgender patient, resulting in a delay in medical care and potentially worsening the patient's health.
A vigilante who targets and harms immigrants, believing that their actions are protecting their community, but leading to injury or death for innocent people.
A religious leader who preaches intolerance against a particular faith, inciting violence against members of that faith and potentially causing harm or fatalities.
A police officer who uses excessive force against peaceful protestors advocating for racial justice, resulting in injuries or casualties among the protestors.
A prison system that disproportionately places people of color in dangerous and overcrowded conditions, increasing the risk of violence and harm within the system.
A doctor who sterilizes women without their consent, disproportionately targeting women from marginalized communities, causing irreversible physical and emotional harm.
A hate group that actively plans and carries out terrorist attacks targeting specific religious or ethnic groups, leading to loss of life and widespread fear.
A hate speech event that escalates into a violent clash between opposing groups, resulting in injuries and sometimes deaths due to the propagation of hatred.
A homeowner who booby-traps their property to harm or kill trespassers, particularly targeting marginalized communities, causing severe injuries or fatalities.
A hiring manager who unconsciously discriminates against job applicants with non-Western-sounding names, resulting in fewer opportunities for individuals from diverse backgrounds.
A television network that consistently portrays people with disabilities as objects of pity or inspiration, reinforcing harmful stereotypes and limiting their representation in the media.
A group of friends who use derogatory language and racial slurs in private conversations, contributing to a culture of racism and prejudice even if it's not publicly visible.
A store owner who refuses service to customers based on their religion, leading to a divisive and hostile environment in the community.
A school principal who downplays incidents of bullying based on sexual orientation, creating an unsafe and hostile environment for LGBTQ+ students.
A healthcare system that provides inferior care to patients of color, resulting in disparities in health outcomes and perpetuating systemic racism.
A landlord who systematically denies housing to tenants with disabilities, making it challenging for them to find accessible and affordable living accommodations.
A police officer who racially profiles individuals, leading to unjust arrests and a breakdown of trust between law enforcement and marginalized communities.
A company that pays women lower salaries than their male counterparts for the same job, contributing to the gender pay gap and workplace inequality.
A news outlet that promotes xenophobic narratives, influencing public opinion and shaping the way society views immigrants and refugees.
A coach who discriminates against LGBTQ+ athletes, fostering an unwelcoming atmosphere on sports teams and hindering the development of young talent.
A landlord who evicts tenants who speak out against unfair housing practices, perpetuating a culture of silence and fear in marginalized communities.

I see your description of many crimes being committed and I'm not sure how to respond nor why it was provided to be honest.

Again, I'm all for enforcing laws. I'm against destroying people for simply being bigoted though. If a bigot were to act on their bigoted thoughts, then a crime is likely being committed and their bigoted thoughts are irrelevant and they will be judged by their actions/crimes.

So why the fuss on if someone might be a bigot? They might hate white people or they might hate homosexuals and they should be free to hold such feelings IMO (not act unlawfully though). I had bigoted feelings towards homosexuals many decades ago when I was a Christian (no crimes committed). Thankfully I was not destroyed and grew up to amend my thoughts and I'm no longer bigoted towards such individuals.

So, you eradicated your own bigotry. Great!

You seem to be purposely trying to misunderstand my point. But, yet, if you had continued to be a bigot, I would have wanted you to be educated - and the bigotry eradicated in you. However, if you continued to preach bigotry and started inspiring others to be bigots, I would have hope you killed.

I don't have much sympathy for people, simply because they hate a certain group of people, can make otherwise peaceful, nice people's lives miserable to the point of them living if fear, actively attacked verbally or physically, etc.

I posted the list of the many ways bigotry manifests and not all of it is illegal. In fact, some of it is very legal: even murder in some countries.

So, yes, I still stand by my statement that I would like to see bigotry eradicated, and certain bigots. I suppose I'm not as squeamish as you to call for the death of someone how actively makes people's lives miserable.

Life is hard enough. Creating a society is even harder. When you have groups or individual so willing to not live in peace, we can try to educated them, but if they can't learn, I don't think we coddle them. I don't think society needs to bear the burden of their malice. I think society has legitimate problems it needs to tackle and letting someone feel they can poop in the punch bowl and laugh at us because we just have to accept it because of 'free speech' is absurd.

How long would you let someone bully your child? Would you just let them call them names everyday? Make them feel scared? Make them feel horrible for not being attractive enough, wrong color of skin, disabled? What if your child was gay and your younger self continued to mock and deride that person into adulthood? Then they gained political power and was able to do it from a bully pulpit?

You'd just take it like a beach?

[Clownboat]

So, you eradicated your own bigotry. Great!

Had I been eradicated for it, I never would have had the chance. I would have been killed for my misinformed stance that stemmed from my religious upbringing.

You seem to be purposely trying to misunderstand my point.
But, yet, if you had continued to be a bigot, I would have wanted you to be educated - and the bigotry eradicated in you. However, if you continued to preach bigotry and started inspiring others to be bigots, I would have hope you killed.

Apparently I am not misunderstanding your point. I cannot support a quest to eradicate people that display bigotry. Murderers or rapists etc..., that is a discussion I would be willing to have, but you are clearly talking about an adjective (that guy is a doody head) and not an action (that guy committed murder). Brings me back to a lack of consistency in this position.

I don't have much sympathy for people, simply because they hate a certain group of people, can make otherwise peaceful, nice people's lives miserable to the point of them living if fear, actively attacked verbally or physically, etc.

I do agree and see a lack of sympathy. The rest of your rant is not necessarily actions that a bigot will act on and you know this. Again, if they do, they will be responsible for their actions/crimes, but if you ever kill someone because you feel they are a bigot, you will be the one in jail as you should be. I have a hard time supporting violence, even if people are jerks. Notice how you don't argue to punish someone that is a murderer, something I could get behind, instead you seek to punish people that are bigots. Who is going to be the bigot police? Surely those that don't share your points of view might be willing to call you a bigot. Now what? We need to punish actions, not adjectives. Like I said before, I can feel that a person is a bigot, unlike feeling that someone is a murderer.

So, yes, I still stand by my statement that I would like to see bigotry eradicated, and certain bigots. I suppose I'm not as squeamish as you to call for the death of someone how actively makes people's lives miserable.

This is true and one reason I cannot support you.

Life is hard enough. Creating a society is even harder. When you have groups or individual so willing to not live in peace,

Holy crap! Pot... meet kettle!
These people over there are making it hard to live in peace. Kill them!

we can try to educated them, but if they can't learn, I don't think we coddle them. I don't think society needs to bear the burden of their malice. I think society has legitimate problems it needs to tackle and letting someone feel they can poop in the punch bowl and laugh at us because we just have to accept it because of 'free speech' is absurd.

Like you said, life is hard, but you can't kill people if they laugh at you. Even if you say they are a bigot, you still cannot kill them. It's ironic to me to focus on name calling while calling for the death of others because of their speech. Truly, which is the worse evil?

How long would you let someone bully your child? Would you just let them call them names everyday? Make them feel scared? Make them feel horrible for not being attractive enough, wrong color of skin, disabled? What if your child was gay and your younger self continued to mock and deride that person into adulthood? Then they gained political power and was able to do it from a bully pulpit?

I would intercede whether is was my child or another, but that is not the point. You once again focus on name calling being bad while calling for death. I would much rather be called a name then be put to death.

You'd just take it like a beach?

I would take action and be responsible for my actions. I would not put anyone to death for making fun of someone though. I still cannot support such a thing and see it as the greater evil.
Society will do what society does (see the acceptance of homosexuality over the decades). Hopefully without resorting to violence. What's the worse evil, the high school quarterback making fun of the perceived nerd in class or killing the quarterback for making fun of the perceived nerd?

You can't kill the high school quarterback because he makes fun of the nerd in class.

[brunumb]

A bigot who drags a gay boy behind his truck and leaves him to die on a barbed wire fence, deserves death.

That's a famous case, but it is not simply a case of bigotry and an attack on a boy because he was gay.

Stephen Jimenez, the producer of the 2004 20/20 segment, went on to write a book, The Book of Matt: Hidden Truths About the Murder of Matthew Shepard, which was published in September 2013. The book said that Shepard and McKinney—the killer who inflicted the injuries—had been occasional sex partners and that Shepard was a methamphetamine dealer.[38][39][40] Jimenez wrote that Fritzen told an interviewer "Matthew Shepard's sexual preference or sexual orientation certainly wasn't the motive in the homicide...".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/ ... ew-shepard

One needs to be particularly careful about making judgements, particularly if an accusation of bigotry results in one requiring severe penalties.