A Debate between a left wing and a right wing, AM I really a bigot and not know it?

[Gargamell]

This is my first post Ive ever made on this site.  I would like to know what the community thinks.  Am I wrong?  Am I a bigot and not know it?

Ive been having a back and forth conversation with a friend who is left wing.  The topic was about if peoples feeling's should be the main focus when making decisions.  It started with the Charlottesvile statues being taking down.  I don't think people should be trying to use their feelings as a arguement.

There is a long chain of emails going back and forth.  But eventually I was called a bigot.

I realise that I have some grammar and spelling errors I apologise for that.

Here was my response to it:

------------------------------------------------------------------

you need to show me where I'm being a bigot so together we can eliminate it if its true.

You need to provide me with your evidence.  

 

Where exactly am I being obstinate or intolerant?

Just because I don't agree with you makes me a bigot?  If that's the case then everyone on this planet is a bigot.

 

Because I can say the exact same back at you. Its a moot point.

I don't care about peoples feelings, I care about facts, evidence and reason. That doesn't mean i'm not kind to people or I don't have social manners.  I mean it in regards to debating about topics.

 

I've already given you my evidence and reasons and I have plenty more if you like, whats your evidence other than saying I might be a bigot.

Have you ever considered that maybe I'm correct?

Maybe my argument is sound.

 

Show me where in my argument I am incorrect with logic and facts.

If my argument is proven to be wrong then the first thing I would do is abandon than argument all together and come up with a better argument/solution.

 

Would you do the same if your''re argument was wrong?

And, if I am correct what does that make you?  hint it starts with a B

 

again I say all this this with respect

 

Then his response was:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 

OK

Exhibit A: 
Merriam Webster defines a bigot as someone who "... is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices ..."

reference:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot

Exhibit B:
Merriam Webster defines obstinate as "stubbornly adhering to an opinion, purpose, or course in spite of reason, arguments, or persuasion"

reference:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/obstinately

Exhibit C:
I stated in a previous email that "The government needs to weigh many people's feelings. If everyone felt a certain way, they would be pressured to act a certain way."

Exhibit D:
You replied that "[you don't] care about peoples feelings"

Exhibit E:
An article from not CNN describing the motivation for removing a statue.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/confederate-memorial-removed-maryland-courthouse-ellicott-city/

Conclusion:

Despite my sharing that I understands that the government must take into account various viewpoints and feelings of various stakeholders on a given issue, You stubbornly adheres to your opinion that the government must not consider people's feelings. Does this mean that the opposite is also true, and I is being obstinate in suggesting feelings matter? No, because Exhibit E provides evidence to the contrary, where a government official was quoted in saying "It has become increasingly clear in recent weeks that memorials such as this are hurtful to many residents in our community and elsewhere. ... Given these feelings and the tragedy in Charlottesville, I felt compelled to remove this memorial from public property."

Based on the evidence provided, and proper use of the word bigot, it is with great regret that I must inform you that saying feelings cannot be considered while weighing options of concern to a large number of people who are governed by a governing body is bigoted.

As you have previously stated, you will now abandon your position and consider the impact of government decisions on people feelings. This does not mean that a government must not hurt people feelings, because as there are a great number of people involved, it would be impossible to do anything of significance without impacting someone negatively.


Enjoy,

 

 

PS, for your further enjoyment, you should check out this video from Derrick Muller of Veritasium, in which he makes the for why one should aspire to "Be Hated"

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0m9E9Ewhack

 

Despite the fact that this man believes that climate change is real, I think you will legitimately appreciate the point he makes in this video. Please ignore that parts about climate change, I am not trying to open that debate with you. I only want you to listen to his main point about the debate and the discussion.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I open this to the community.  Am i in fact a bigot?  Am I misguided? 

I'd would like to know the communities thoughts on this please

Maybe you guys can help see IF and where I am wrong so that I can evolve my thoughts.

 

Thank You

[Goldenages]

Hello,

the duty of the government is to provide legal certainty, e.g. property rights. 

It is not the duty of the government to take care about feelings, and there is a reason why: Who decides which feelings are the right ones? Nowadays the governments in the West mostly deal with areas which explicitly are not government dutys, even more, which explicitly should be independent from government, such as business, climate, marriage and so on. And here is the same question: Who decides which business is the right one, which climate is the best, and who is allowed to marry whom?

If any government consider feelings (or more generally, areas who must not be influencend by the government) the government becomes a tool of gangs, because groups battle for more and more political influence, more and more tax money, and their view is not shared through arguments but by force. State power is increasing, freedom gets lost.

For example: Its fine with me if some muslims demonstrate with posters such as "Freedom go to hell" or "Sharia for everyone". Yes that hurts the feelings of any reasonable mind, but the right to demonstrate is for everybody regardless of the feelings of others.

But: Its not fine with me if those demonstrators live on welfare, because the government decided - for whatever foolish reason - that it is a good idea to pamper third world immigrants with tax money.

All those above areas (and many more) are best ruled out by the free market. If "Freedom go to hell" and "Sharia for everyone" are valid arguments, resulting e.g. in prosperity for those who live accordingly, those arguments will make its way and more and more would join voluntarily to benefit.

Obviously this is not the case. To the contrary, as a result of the state influencing the free market (in this case, the free market of ideas) with tax money, we see the rise of toxic and dangerous ideas.

Which is typical for everything influenced by the state.

 

regards

Andi

 

[Goldenages]

13 hours ago, Gargamell said:

..Given these feelings and the tragedy in Charlottesville, I felt compelled to remove this memorial from public property."

 

PS: To answer this concrete question - the tragedy lies in the term "public property". And of course, those in power "know" which feelings are correct and appropriate, right?

What we see here is nothing less than spreading politics through a moral "argument":

- If you still reject electric cars, you obviously do not care about the environment - you are a bad person.

 -If you still do not like the religion of peace, although it is allegedly your fault (if you are white) that middle east is a mess - you are a bad person.

 -If you think taxes are too high, and you do not want to give half your income to the state, you are greedy (you, not the state) and do not care about the poor - you are a bad person.

 - If you do not care about feelings of others (and, as said, which feelings are correct is decided by the power of the state) and you want to keep that statue - you are a bad person.

 

The problem with the statue would easily be solved if there were no such thing as "public property". Public property basically means property of the ruling gang, used to expand their power.

If the statue was privately owned, it could be removed only with agreement of its owner, and could not be used to make politics.

regards

Andi

[Tyler H]

"I made a statement and you don't agree, you're a bigot!" 

Nothing here portrays you as a bigot. In fact I'm willing to bet if I had the entire transcript of your conversation leading up to this point I would find that your "friend" is projecting and is therefore, by his own standards, the bigot.

Im curious, why are you friends with him? And I don't mean to imply that you shouldn't be, I'm genuinely curious what are the positive aspects of the relationship for which you maintain it. 

[Gargamell]

Thank you for your input guys I appreciate it.  I was originally worried that maybe I was being a bigot but its not the case.

To answer your questions why we are friends.

I would say because If I want to try and build a bridge to people on the left I best start with people I know.  However it just doesn’t seem like it can be done.

Our debate still continues and heres the latest:

I said:

Oh there is no doubt that the government is taking people's feelings Into to account.  No debate there.

 

But they really shouldn't be basing decisions off of feelings. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Then he replied with:

If you admit that they DO take feelings into account, then I can no longer say your position is bigoted. 

I would like to think we can move on, and say you are not a bigot. (I never really thought so, but it felt like you were trying to prove me wrong)




So now SHOULD the government contemplate people's feelings? That is an interesting question.

I think they have to, to some degree. But it should not be the only factor.

I'm starved for an example of some sort...

What if (and let's pretend here) climate change was real, and the government decided to scrap all gas cars. Then they decided it would be cheaper not to compensate me for having to buy a new car.

My feelings are hurt.

Should they care?

I think that's a bad example. Moving on....


What if the US government decided that instead of removing confederate statues, they decide to label each statue proudly with a prominent banner that read:


Participation Award!
Here we celebrate the losers of the war. They gave it their all, but came up short.

Would that hurt the feelings of the Daughters of Confederacy?

Should anyone care?

 

 

This has gone on for about 48 emails back and forth.  I don’t know what else I can say as I have provided all my evidence and proof but he doesn’t seem to comprehend who decides what feelings are the right ones and its not the duty of the government to take care about feelings.

I don’t think there is anything I could say to get my point across.  I think this is a waste of my time.  I almost feel like he wants me to just drop the topic so he can feel like “he won”

[Goldenages]

16 hours ago, Gargamell said:

I don’t know what else I can say as I have provided all my evidence and proof but he doesn’t seem to comprehend who decides what feelings are the right ones and its not the duty of the government to take care about feelings.

Well ist very unlikely that anyone changes his mind that fast. But at least you provided the notion that nowadays governments "care" about things which they should not care at all.

I take every chance to make myself unpopular and have many discussions. It is scary, but the idea that there are problems which are best solved without government (in fact, all , but I make it step by step) is completely out of mind of too many people. It takes time, many examples and many repetitions, and progress is slow.

However, actually there is plenty of evidence of incompetence of politicians. Elections are soon in Germany and Austria, and even the most benevolent sheep wonder why migrants do not play any role in the so called discussions in state TV.

So do not give up, but do not exhaust yourself, all you owe your environmet is honesty and rational arguments. If somebody is too stupid, well, how could he be Atlas who carries the world?

 

regards

Andi

[RichardY]

Reminds me of a former British PM Gordon Brown(The moron who sold the Gold reserves when they were around$250 per ounce). Was caught calling an old woman a bigot for expressing concerns of immigration.

Gordon is a moron!, Gordon is a moron!, it ain't fair yeah yeah.......................