Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC)   "I'd like to thank my mother and father, and of course God, for this Bigot of the Year award. Excuse me, I just get so emotional"   (bbc.co.uk) divider line 56
    More: Silly, god, Cardinal Keith O'Brien, Stonewall, barclays, Melanie Phillips, Scottish Government  
•       •       •

10903 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 Nov 2012 at 9:48 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



56 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-02 09:38:00 AM  
news.bbcimg.co.uk
"The first time I didn't feel it, but this time
I feel it, and I can't deny the fact that *sniff*
you hate me, right now, you hate me!
 
2012-11-02 09:50:47 AM  
Of course, because Gay Rights groups have the sole authority to hand out meaningful declarations of "bigotry". This is a non-story.
 
2012-11-02 09:54:17 AM  
Sponsors threatened to back out next year, so they'll rename the award to something less eye-catching and we'll never hear about it again.

I'm not sure whose point that will prove... maybe everyone's?
 
2012-11-02 09:55:12 AM  
He certainly is a deserving candidate. But who won for c**ksucker of the year?
 
2012-11-02 09:57:04 AM  
Cry us a river, you farking bigot.
 
2012-11-02 09:58:35 AM  
Hunter_Worthington: because Gay Rights groups have the sole fabulous authority to hand out meaningful declarations of "bigotry". 

they do and they did
 
2012-11-02 10:01:21 AM  
The real question is......what did he wear on the red carpet?
 
2012-11-02 10:01:22 AM  
so many candidates in US, so few trophies
 
2012-11-02 10:03:57 AM  
If people didn't want to called bigots, they should stop doing bigoted things. Simple.
 
2012-11-02 10:03:58 AM  

Hunter_Worthington: Of course, because Gay Rights groups have the sole authority to hand out meaningful declarations of "bigotry". This is a non-story.


That's approaching derp levels I haven't seen in quite some time. And it's farking election season. Even if you take gays out of the picture.
 
2012-11-02 10:04:08 AM  
The award included a box of condoms and a day pass to Six Flags.
 
2012-11-02 10:04:34 AM  

TheFark5000: If people didn't want to called bigots, they should stop doing bigoted things. Simple.


You're blaming the victim! Bigots have rights, too!
 
2012-11-02 10:05:21 AM  

doubled99: He certainly is a deserving candidate. But who won for c**ksucker of the year?


They're still "reviewing" candidates for the first award, which was five years ago.
 
2012-11-02 10:05:21 AM  
Oh now the sponsors have a problem with the Bigot of the Year award.
 
2012-11-02 10:06:57 AM  
His battle is already lost so I can't understand why he keeps whining about it. Same sex unions are legal in Scotland and have all the same rights as marriage, the change to call it a marriage is a change in name only. Everything else is the same, including all rights and responsibilities, so getting his panties in a twist about it is pointless.
 
2012-11-02 10:08:54 AM  

dothemath: The award included a box of condoms and a day pass to Six Flags.


Did you say Flags?
 
2012-11-02 10:12:22 AM  

fruitloop: Oh now the sponsors have a problem with the Bigot of the Year award.


came to say something similar: They've handed out the bigot award at least three previous times. Outrage this go round must have to do with who the recipient is.
 
2012-11-02 10:13:48 AM  
Salesman: So how does this brogan feel? Tight in the toes? Think it'll give you blisters?

Cardinal: Nope, fits just fine.

Salesman: Then wear it, biatch!
 
2012-11-02 10:18:27 AM  
He has also compared gay marriage with paedophila, saying: "What if a man likes little girls? Can he adopt a little girl and then just have a little girl at home? We are working towards the destruction of any sort of moral standards."

Not bigot, just open-minded about paedophila,
 
2012-11-02 10:20:38 AM  
From the Oxford online dictionary:

Definition of bigot
noun
a person who is bigoted

Definition of bigoted
adjective
having or revealing an obstinate belief in the superiority of one's own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others

/that is all
 
2012-11-02 10:24:01 AM  
Maybe if he doesn't want to be called a bigot he should...I don't know, stop being a bigot? I guess that sounds silly, though. What do I know?
 
2012-11-02 10:30:40 AM  
One thing I've learned in all my years on this earth is that the best way to end hateful stances of others is to show them more hate in return
 
2012-11-02 10:30:54 AM  
the Bigot card...the new Race card
 
2012-11-02 10:35:12 AM  

Elroydb: One thing I've learned in all my years on this earth is that the best way to end hateful stances of others is to show them more hate in return


As opposed to the winning strategy of looking the other way, not saying anything, and letting hate go unchallenged.

We're the real bigots for calling out bigotry after all.
 
2012-11-02 10:37:00 AM  
Can't they just respond with a FOTY award then?
 
2012-11-02 10:37:14 AM  
Bigot is used as a pejorative, but it is a word with a definite meaning. If the best defense you have is "calling people names doesn't help" instead of "I don't know why you called me a bigot, as my actions have not been bigoted as supported by a., b., and c.," then I'm not sure you've got ground to stand on.

He compared them to pedophiles. He said, in effect, that gays marrying is ruining Scotland. None of this is supported with evidence, and thus it is wholly opinion and conjecture. How is he not bigoted against gay people?

Do we have to start calling it the "B-word" now?
 
2012-11-02 10:45:49 AM  
Since apparently this group is receiving money from the government, I can understand why people are upset. But, at the same time, I think most people are grown-up enough to realize that name-calling is the last refuge of those who have run out of arguments. I'd be a lot more impressed if the Catholic Church had just shrugged it off, or if the Cardinal had issued a press release saying in effect how personally validated the award makes him feel. Sort of like how politicians in the US sometimes brag about the Fs they get from the Brady Campaign or NARAL.
 
2012-11-02 10:50:11 AM  
imageshack.us
 
2012-11-02 10:50:55 AM  
I came to the realization a few years ago that -
Everybody's gonna hate somebody.
So I think the real issue then is to NOT be the guy EVERYONE hates.

You reading this? Somebody hates you, maybe a lot of somebody's hate you.

I'm lucky in that I know who hates me.

Hate, it's the one thing most of us share.
*cry's in corner*
 
2012-11-02 10:57:03 AM  

factoryconnection: Bigot is used as a pejorative, but it is a word with a definite meaning. If the best defense you have is "calling people names doesn't help" instead of "I don't know why you called me a bigot, as my actions have not been bigoted as supported by a., b., and c.," then I'm not sure you've got ground to stand on.

He compared them to pedophiles. He said, in effect, that gays marrying is ruining Scotland. None of this is supported with evidence, and thus it is wholly opinion and conjecture. How is he not bigoted against gay people?

Do we have to start calling it the "B-word" now?


It's a word with a definite meaning, but it's also kind of a useless word. A bigot is someone, who because of a character defect, isn't tolerant enough of something that he ought to tolerate. Calling someone a bigot is a form of ad hominem fallacy because it replaces discussion about the actual issue--what ought to be tolerated--with allegations about an opponent's supposed motives and/or flaws.
 
2012-11-02 11:15:28 AM  
Well I think they should table this row with this cell of the gay fifth column. It's the height of bigotry and borders on bullying.
 
2012-11-02 11:17:12 AM  

Rostin: Calling someone a bigot is a form of ad hominem fallacy because it replaces discussion about the actual issue--what ought to be tolerated--with allegations about an opponent's supposed motives and/or flaws.


Not all labels are ad hominems. Example: calling someone with 40% body fat "obese" may hurt their feelings, but it is absolutely true regardless of how they feel about it.

Stonewall works to promote peoples' rights. This preacher compares people to child-molesting criminals in an effort to remove those rights. I'm sorry if my church gets butt-hurt over getting called out for their offensive policies, but highlighting their anti-rights leaders isn't a statement that there are no valid arguments. They backed up their description of him, in fact.
 
2012-11-02 11:24:10 AM  
Let the homos cry all they want. They just want attention. Just pretend they're not there and continue on with your own business.
 
2012-11-02 11:48:05 AM  

factoryconnection: Rostin: Calling someone a bigot is a form of ad hominem fallacy because it replaces discussion about the actual issue--what ought to be tolerated--with allegations about an opponent's supposed motives and/or flaws.

Not all labels are ad hominems.


Re-read my comment. I didn't say that they were.

Stonewall works to promote peoples' rights. This preacher compares people to child-molesting criminals in an effort to remove those rights. I'm sorry if my church gets butt-hurt over getting called out for their offensive policies, but highlighting their anti-rights leaders isn't a statement that there are no valid arguments. They backed up their description of him, in fact.

You're describing how Stonewall and its allies have framed their position, but you're not telling me why I should think that the Cardinal and the Roman Catholic Church are bigots. They obviously believe that same-sex marriage shouldn't be considered a right. That's what the dispute really should be about, not questioning the Cardinal's motives and calling him names for disagreeing with the position that you support.
 
2012-11-02 11:48:05 AM  
If we don't call him a bigot will he stop calling for gay people to be denied equal rights?

No?

Well then, Bishop whiny bigot can just go fark himself.

... and to the people who say calling him a bigot is counterproductive, if it really was counterproductive bigots wouldn't dislike it so much.
 
2012-11-02 11:49:40 AM  
Why do doughnut punchers seem to think that being a doodoo lover has any baring in anyone elses lives. We don't care.
 
2012-11-02 12:07:03 PM  

Spiralmonkey: His battle is already lost so I can't understand why he keeps whining about it. Same sex unions are legal in Scotland and have all the same rights as marriage, the change to call it a marriage is a change in name only. Everything else is the same, including all rights and responsibilities, so getting his panties in a twist about it is pointless.


Yeah, but religious people get really worried about semantics.

It's really all they have.
 
2012-11-02 12:16:02 PM  
Would they prefer "Pedophile of the Year"?
 
2012-11-02 02:09:00 PM  

Rostin: You're describing how Stonewall and its allies have framed their position, but you're not telling me why I should think that the Cardinal and the Roman Catholic Church are bigots.


Their bigotry is expressed in their villainous characterization of gays as an enemy group, using religion as a backdrop to deny citizens their rights. He's not preaching against Catholics having the right to do something with God's blessing, he's preaching against all people having the right, by convincing people that the affected group are in fact monsters that are taking something away from the rest of society. His prejudices and opinions, from a position of power are being used to deny others rights.

I'm not sure what definition of bigotry he's not meeting.
 
2012-11-02 03:11:05 PM  
factoryconnection:

Their bigotry is expressed...

How do you know that what they are expressing is bigotry? Does the Cardinal say what he does because he is actually "prejudiced", or does it just seem to you that he is because you and he simply have incommensurable understandings of right and wrong?

I understand that you strongly disagree with his point of view. But calling him a bigot seems to go beyond disagreement to speculating, in a completely unwarranted way, about what's really "behind" his opinions. It adds nothing factual or helpful to the discussion. It seems designed just to prejudice people against what he has to say.

I'm not sure what definition of bigotry he's not meeting.

By the way, how do you define bigotry?
 
2012-11-02 03:26:49 PM  

Rostin: I understand that you strongly disagree with his point of view. But calling him a bigot seems to go beyond disagreement to speculating, in a completely unwarranted way, about what's really "behind" his opinions.


At some point, it just doesn't matter why someone is expressing a clearly offensive and bigoted viewpoint... Sure, they might just be completely ignorant that they're even doing so, but it doesn't make them any more worthy of any level of respect... If someone were making the same offensive claims this guy is making in opposition to interracial marriage, would you say it's wrong to call him a racist despite the fact that he's making obviously racist arguments? If they went all slippery-slope like this guy and other gay marriage opponents do, and said something like, "What's next, letting a white man marry a monkey?!", you don't think they should be called racist? They may not think themselves a racist, and this guy may not think himself a bigot, but merely the fact that they are both arguing against fundamental human rights for a specific group of people tells me all I need to know about their actual bigotry... The fact that they're both doing so in a very offensive way, just adds to my view of them both as assholes in addition to being bigots...
 
2012-11-02 03:43:34 PM  
2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-11-02 03:49:42 PM  
Haters gonna hate.
 
2012-11-02 04:01:43 PM  

Rostin: How do you know that what they are expressing is bigotry? Does the Cardinal say what he does because he is actually "prejudiced", or does it just seem to you that he is because you and he simply have incommensurable understandings of right and wrong?


He has pre-judged all homosexuals as equivalent to pedophiles. His judgment, summarized by him in fact: "Those of us who were not in favour of civil partnership, believing that such relationships are harmful to the physical, mental and spiritual wellbeing of those involved..." So it all has to do with his "beliefs" and not "facts."

He has pre-judged all gay couples as incompatible with society and unable to raise children properly.  He's against civil partnerships no matter what, and thus against gay marriage. The people affected are meaningless, he has his "beliefs" and his position of authority.
 
2012-11-02 04:58:38 PM  

RobSeace: Rostin: I understand that you strongly disagree with his point of view. But calling him a bigot seems to go beyond disagreement to speculating, in a completely unwarranted way, about what's really "behind" his opinions.

At some point, it just doesn't matter why someone is expressing a clearly offensive and bigoted viewpoint... Sure, they might just be completely ignorant that they're even doing so, but it doesn't make them any more worthy of any level of respect... If someone were making the same offensive claims this guy is making in opposition to interracial marriage, would you say it's wrong to call him a racist despite the fact that he's making obviously racist arguments? If they went all slippery-slope like this guy and other gay marriage opponents do, and said something like, "What's next, letting a white man marry a monkey?!", you don't think they should be called racist? They may not think themselves a racist, and this guy may not think himself a bigot, but merely the fact that they are both arguing against fundamental human rights for a specific group of people tells me all I need to know about their actual bigotry... The fact that they're both doing so in a very offensive way, just adds to my view of them both as assholes in addition to being bigots...


A racist is someone who believes in the natural superiority of some races over others. If someone argues, just for example, that white people and black people shouldn't marry because the purity of the white race should be protected against genetic pollution, then he's almost certainly a racist.

Bigotry is in a separate category altogether. It does not describe a doctrine or a belief. Rather, it is a personal quality. It's hard to think of any reason why we would call someone a bigot except, as I said above, to prejudice others against him by calling his character into question.
 
2012-11-02 05:17:40 PM  
RobSeace Smartest
Funniest
2012-11-02 03:26:49 PM


Rostin: I understand that you strongly disagree with his point of view. But calling him a bigot seems to go beyond disagreement to speculating, in a completely unwarranted way, about what's really "behind" his opinions.

At some point, it just doesn't matter why someone is expressing a clearly offensive and bigoted viewpoint... Sure, they might just be completely ignorant that they're even doing so, but it doesn't make them any more worthy of any level of respect... If someone were making the same offensive claims this guy is making in opposition to interracial marriage, would you say it's wrong to call him a racist despite the fact that he's making obviously racist arguments? If they went all slippery-slope like this guy and other gay marriage opponents do, and said something like, "What's next, letting a white man marry a monkey?!", you don't think they should be called racist? They may not think themselves a racist, and this guy may not think himself a bigot, but merely the fact that they are both arguing against fundamental human rights for a specific group of people tells me all I need to know about their actual bigotry... The fact that they're both doing so in a very offensive way, just adds to my view of them both as assholes in addition to being bigots...




So your worldview and opinion of them is intellectually superior to theirs because you say it is?
Makes sense.
 
2012-11-02 05:49:06 PM  

Rostin: A racist is someone who believes in the natural superiority of some races over others. If someone argues, just for example, that white people and black people shouldn't marry because the purity of the white race should be protected against genetic pollution, then he's almost certainly a racist.


And, this guy thinks society will be ruined if we allow gays to be seen as equal with the same right to marry each other as straight people have... They all seem to be worried about the "purity" (or "sanctity") of marriage being poluted by allowing in the gays... And, they seem pretty convinced in the superiority of heterosexuality to homosexuality, going so far as to believe the latter an actual sin worthy of eternal torture in hellfire...

I don't know, it sure sounds like a very similar mindset to me...

Bigotry is in a separate category altogether. It does not describe a doctrine or a belief. Rather, it is a personal quality. It's hard to think of any reason why we would call someone a bigot except, as I said above, to prejudice others against him by calling his character into question.

Bigotry is essentually just a superset of racism... All racists are bigots, but not all bigots are racists... Some bigots are instead sexists or homophobes... Some are bigotphobes (to coin a term); I'm one of them...

People are calling his character into question because they find his character questionable and worthy of contempt...
 
2012-11-02 06:02:07 PM  

doubled99: So your worldview and opinion of them is intellectually superior to theirs because you say it is?


Yes, I consider myself and beliefs superior to that of bigots... Are you trying to imply that I'm bigoted against bigots and intolerant of intolerance? You're goddamn right I am! As everyone should be...

/Exception for those also bigoted against bigots; I'm not bigoted against them...
//They're the only bigots with a rational reason for the bigotry...
 
2012-11-02 06:29:53 PM  

Rostin: It's hard to think of any reason why we would call someone a bigot except, as I said above, to prejudice others against him by calling his character into question.


To put it another way: suppose I were out campaigning against the rights of Christians to be able to legally practice their religion... Suppose I said something like, "If we allow Christians, what's next, allowing some barbaric cult to perform human-sacrifice rituals?!"... Do you really think the good Cardinal here wouldn't call me bigoted against Christians? Do you think he'd be wrong to do so?
 
2012-11-03 01:25:18 PM  

RobSeace: Rostin: A racist is someone who believes in the natural superiority of some races over others. If someone argues, just for example, that white people and black people shouldn't marry because the purity of the white race should be protected against genetic pollution, then he's almost certainly a racist.

And, this guy thinks society will be ruined if we allow gays to be seen as equal with the same right to marry each other as straight people have...


I'm not familiar with all of the Cardinal's positions, but I doubt that he wants gay people to be treated as inferiors. Same-sex marriage advocates have adopted the language of "rights", but opponents frame the debate in terms of the definition of marriage. If an essential aspect of marriage is sexual complementarity, then arguing that same-sex couples have been denied the right to marry is nonsensical, and charge of bigotry falls apart.

Bigotry is essentually just a superset of racism...

No, it's not. Again, racism is an idea, bigotry is a quality. Allow me to illustrate. A white child could conceivably be raised a racist by his racist parents. if all he's ever been told is that black people are inferior, then up to a certain point, it would be reasonable for him to believe it, and therefore unfair to accuse him of bigotry. If, after leaving home and meeting black people and becoming familiar with the difficulties of defining race as a biological concept and learning about institutional racism and so on, he stubbornly persists in his racism, then he might be a bigot. But if he admits that he was misinformed and wrong and changes his mind, I don't think that it would be reasonable to say that he was a bigoted person just because he was ignorant.
 
Displayed 50 of 56 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report