The unfortunate thing about dictionaries is that they define words based on their usage, and if the usage is ambiguous or equivocal, the dictionary is, by function, destined to promulgate such confusion. This contributes to social unrest and misunderstanding when words lose their ability to discriminate from one another, and individuals and social groups argue past each other by using the same terms but not the same underlying definitions.
Terms that have fallen prey to such catastrophic use are "intolerance," "discriminate" and "bigot."
In the social conversations about the acceptance or rejection of LGBT values, individuals and groups that are against LGBT values are often derogatorily called "intolerant," "bigots," and their disagreement with LGBT values "discriminatory." Where those supporting LGBT values are called "fair-minded," and "loving." But
just the opposite is true, if logic and natural law have any weight.
Recently, it was reported that Ford Motor Company fired a contract employee because the Christian engineer appropriately expressed his opinion against the company's promotion of LGBT values on a company sponsored comment section of an internal company website that asked for opinions. He was labeled a bigot as the result of his Christian values, which understands LGBT lifestyles as harming society and the individuals who practice LGBT lifestyles.
But in fact, an logical examination of the terms being tossed around will reveal that it was Ford Motor Company's actions against the Christian engineer that were unreasonable and bigoted, and it was the engineer's expression that was reasonable and loving. It was Ford that was harassing, not the engineer, and it was Ford that unfairly discriminated against the engineer, not the engineer against homosexual values.
Here is why.
BIGOTRY is commonly defined by on-line dictionaries, which provide but one short definition for a term, in these ways:
The debate, therefore should not be whether or not the Christian engineer was against LGBT values, but whether or not LGBT values are good or bad for society and the individuals that practice them. I establish in other posts the scientifically verifiable destructive nature of LGBT values, so I will not belabor those ideas here.
The second two definitions (above) from Merriam-Webster and Cambridge, do a better job at discriminating what a bigot is. They use the discriminating terms "unfairly" and "unreasonable"... as in "a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes..." or "a person who has strong, unreasonable ideas..."
"Unfair" and "unreasonable" find their footing in logic and the sustaining of the species through natural, healthy behavior. We all discriminate (i.e. differentiate) between people and ideas for the sake of clarity, as I have in this post when I point out the difference between the definition of terms, or between values that promote life (kindness and protection) and promote death (bodily threats and murder). To embrace a value that is against some idea (even strongly and intolerantly against it) is only bigoted if the reason for the contrary opinion is not based in reason, or the sustaining of life. If there are reasons that indicate the idea is contrary to sustaining life, then the idea is not bigoted but reasonable, loving and kind.
A member of the KKK who hates blacks is accurately called a bigot because there's no logical reason why being black (per se) or having some portion of your heritage black, is contrary to sustaining life. It is an unreasonable, and an unfair opinion, that is forced on others through intolerant behavior that includes murder. Thus, the KKK, who, for an irrational reason, forces his beliefs on others through murder is called a bigot.
But the Christian engineer does not fit either of these definitions of bigotry. His opinions are (1) based on factual understanding of natural law that LGBT behavior is destructive (see the earlier posts) to both society and the individual, and (2) he is not trying to kill LGBT individuals, but rather encouraging them toward sustaining their lives by avoiding risky behavior.
At the same time, Ford Motor Company is the entity that is promoting a (1) destructive lifestyles (which are irrational to the sustaining of life and happiness), and has (2) demonstrated intolerance by punishing the engineer for his values. Thus, it is Ford Motor Company that is the bigot for their irrational intolerance of what is good, true, and beautiful.
You'll notice I have not called Ford Motor Company "discriminatory." To discriminate, as I have done in this post, is a good thing...it tells the difference between two things. If the reasons for that difference are logical, then the discrimination is good; while, if the differences are irrational then the discrimination is bad. But, if Ford Motor Company wants to derogatorily claim that the man discriminated against LGBTs, then the Company must more accurately admit that they (unfairly, and unreasonably) discriminated against the Christian engineer. The engineer's discrimination was fair and just (LGBT values are destructive to individuals and society), but Ford Motor's discrimination was unfair and unjust because avoiding and not promoting destructive lifestyles is loving not hating.
Similar treatments (like this post) are due for the term: "intolerance." But, to quickly reinforce an earlier point: "Tolerance" connotes the living with something we don't like; it does not mean "support" or "approval." For example, ISIS is intolerant of homosexuality when they murder homosexuals. The Christian engineer was tolerant of LGBT behavior, he was not physically forcing his values on others. But Ford Motor caused physical harm to the engineer for his beliefs, and was being intolerant of Christian values. Ford is the intolerant bigot in this story.
Terms that have fallen prey to such catastrophic use are "intolerance," "discriminate" and "bigot."
In the social conversations about the acceptance or rejection of LGBT values, individuals and groups that are against LGBT values are often derogatorily called "intolerant," "bigots," and their disagreement with LGBT values "discriminatory." Where those supporting LGBT values are called "fair-minded," and "loving." But
just the opposite is true, if logic and natural law have any weight.
Recently, it was reported that Ford Motor Company fired a contract employee because the Christian engineer appropriately expressed his opinion against the company's promotion of LGBT values on a company sponsored comment section of an internal company website that asked for opinions. He was labeled a bigot as the result of his Christian values, which understands LGBT lifestyles as harming society and the individuals who practice LGBT lifestyles.
But in fact, an logical examination of the terms being tossed around will reveal that it was Ford Motor Company's actions against the Christian engineer that were unreasonable and bigoted, and it was the engineer's expression that was reasonable and loving. It was Ford that was harassing, not the engineer, and it was Ford that unfairly discriminated against the engineer, not the engineer against homosexual values.
Here is why.
BIGOTRY is commonly defined by on-line dictionaries, which provide but one short definition for a term, in these ways:
Google Chrome's choice: "intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself."
Disctionary.com: "stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own."
Merriam-Webster: "a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc, ...especially a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)."
Cambridge Dictionaries Online: "a person who has strong, unreasonable ideas, esp. about race or religion, and who things anyone who does not have the same beliefs is wrong."The problem with the first two definitions (which is commonly used by pro-LGBT voices) is that they do not discriminate between logical vs. irrational opinions or intolerance of bad things. They include any strongly held contrary opinion as bigoted. Thus an opinion strongly held that pedophilia is wrong would be bigoted. Or that murderers should be incarcerated, or that rapists who love what they do should be punished severely. The use of the first two definitions would label individuals who are against pedophilia, murder and rape, as bigots. Hopefully, the choice of these three examples will convince the fair-minded reader that society should discriminate against pedophiles, murderers and rapists. Is it bigoted to discriminate against such persons who habitually behavior in such destructive ways? Or, is discrimination against destructive behavior a good thing?
The debate, therefore should not be whether or not the Christian engineer was against LGBT values, but whether or not LGBT values are good or bad for society and the individuals that practice them. I establish in other posts the scientifically verifiable destructive nature of LGBT values, so I will not belabor those ideas here.
The second two definitions (above) from Merriam-Webster and Cambridge, do a better job at discriminating what a bigot is. They use the discriminating terms "unfairly" and "unreasonable"... as in "a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes..." or "a person who has strong, unreasonable ideas..."
"Unfair" and "unreasonable" find their footing in logic and the sustaining of the species through natural, healthy behavior. We all discriminate (i.e. differentiate) between people and ideas for the sake of clarity, as I have in this post when I point out the difference between the definition of terms, or between values that promote life (kindness and protection) and promote death (bodily threats and murder). To embrace a value that is against some idea (even strongly and intolerantly against it) is only bigoted if the reason for the contrary opinion is not based in reason, or the sustaining of life. If there are reasons that indicate the idea is contrary to sustaining life, then the idea is not bigoted but reasonable, loving and kind.
A member of the KKK who hates blacks is accurately called a bigot because there's no logical reason why being black (per se) or having some portion of your heritage black, is contrary to sustaining life. It is an unreasonable, and an unfair opinion, that is forced on others through intolerant behavior that includes murder. Thus, the KKK, who, for an irrational reason, forces his beliefs on others through murder is called a bigot.
But the Christian engineer does not fit either of these definitions of bigotry. His opinions are (1) based on factual understanding of natural law that LGBT behavior is destructive (see the earlier posts) to both society and the individual, and (2) he is not trying to kill LGBT individuals, but rather encouraging them toward sustaining their lives by avoiding risky behavior.
At the same time, Ford Motor Company is the entity that is promoting a (1) destructive lifestyles (which are irrational to the sustaining of life and happiness), and has (2) demonstrated intolerance by punishing the engineer for his values. Thus, it is Ford Motor Company that is the bigot for their irrational intolerance of what is good, true, and beautiful.
You'll notice I have not called Ford Motor Company "discriminatory." To discriminate, as I have done in this post, is a good thing...it tells the difference between two things. If the reasons for that difference are logical, then the discrimination is good; while, if the differences are irrational then the discrimination is bad. But, if Ford Motor Company wants to derogatorily claim that the man discriminated against LGBTs, then the Company must more accurately admit that they (unfairly, and unreasonably) discriminated against the Christian engineer. The engineer's discrimination was fair and just (LGBT values are destructive to individuals and society), but Ford Motor's discrimination was unfair and unjust because avoiding and not promoting destructive lifestyles is loving not hating.
Similar treatments (like this post) are due for the term: "intolerance." But, to quickly reinforce an earlier point: "Tolerance" connotes the living with something we don't like; it does not mean "support" or "approval." For example, ISIS is intolerant of homosexuality when they murder homosexuals. The Christian engineer was tolerant of LGBT behavior, he was not physically forcing his values on others. But Ford Motor caused physical harm to the engineer for his beliefs, and was being intolerant of Christian values. Ford is the intolerant bigot in this story.
No comments:
Post a Comment