Hypocondria.

A Username Not In Use:

I cannot understand the letting them insult me statement, maybe I did, but after eleven staight years of it, emotionally I was so broken that I just sat there and took it as I could not do anything else.

I have started to come to terms with my childhood, and while I am beginning to acsept what had happened.

I understand. I have said before and will stress again that no one is invulnerable, and I am not holding you accountable for anything. Instead it is you who is doing that, through coming to terms with it. You are reckoning for your own sake. It makes me happy that you are because that means that you're healing any emotional harm that was caused. I commented because it is a revelation I made for myself about this type of subject. No one ever says we must respond to people we deem tedious or insulting, and there was never a rule that claimed that what people say about is us is a truth we must accept.

I must say that I find it absurd if a fat person takes offense to being called fat and points an indignant finger at the offender. What's really offending the fat person is the fact that they agree with the offender about a truth they find tragic or unacceptable. They should instead point the finger at the truth and attempt to alter either their opinion of it or the truth itself. By that I mean they can grow used and tolerant of themselves being overweight, learning to love themselves the way they are, or they can alter the fact that they are overweight by losing weight.

It all amounts to personal responsibility and resolve.

I do come off very harsh to many people by taking an aggressive stance about general mental discipline. I must say that I kicked my own ass, but that it also paid off. I do not condone the abuse you went through. Far from it. I sympathize with you, and this is why I posted in the first place. I was hoping that you'd learn something from my own experience. No one can touch your mind or your emotions unless you let them- unless you agree with them and don't dismiss them. Your life _does_ revolve around you, and to you everything dies should you do so. Everything that exists to you depends on you to exist, and so you should never lose sight that you are the mistress of your life, and that nothing should go on in it that you cannot deal with or accept- learn to accept everything and nothing will offend you, because once everything's accepted, nothing's taboo or unconscionable. Nothing will touch you.

That said, I'm sure you look lovely.

While I've been teased for being fat in the past (hazzar for growth spurts!), I do believe that the parent was a bit overzealous when it came to calling fault to Nintendo. I mean, while I understand where he's coming from (if someone close to you, especially your child, was insulted, wouldn't you also react?), I think that he should've at least talked to Ninendo support staff or something. At least he didn't sue though...

Edit: Hey, according to the BMI, I'm severely underweight (a 17 at last check, with was only a few days ago), and I struggle to run 1.6 km (uh, I got 9:56). So, we all know it's bullshit.

Edit Edit: A Username Not In Use, I too have terrible spelling. May I suggest Spell-Checker as a Mozilla add-on to help your spelling? (It only works with FireFox, but if you still use IE, it's worth downloading FireFox).

THhat does make alot of sence kilosemmek, maybe he reason I didn't agree those dishing out the humiliation was that im my own aragunt (Christ I should have paid more attention in English class)mind I felt it would mean admiting defeat and letting them win, in the end I own shortsightedness did more to harm me.

Still there there is one thing that I do hold in great pride from my childhood, the path I taken after school and my choice of career and the qualifications I have taken were done because I wanted to do them, not to try and prove to everyone that they were wrong about me.

Fat kids and their stupid fat parents. They're fat. Fat fat fat fat. FAT.

Interesting read everyone.

But maybe it's not the world that needs to change;

"No one can make you feel bad without your permission."

"You can only offend the 'offendable'"

The funniest thing here is that WiiFit would never actually label anybody as 'fat'. It does have the capability to label you as 'obese' or 'overweight', but it sure as hell doesn't include a 'fat' setting.

Facts are fun.

Jeez, were they able to put down the cheeseburger long enough to make a lawsuit?

I hate most Americans now. I live in Warrington, PA, 18976, if you want to waddle over and kick my ass.

But Now a days they are characterized by whiny fat ass drama queens who are traumatized every time some one says something negative to them. In fact these people should be called even more names, and the more they complain, you taser them. Grow up. Grown men suing Restaurants, because they can't fit the chairs, and it hurts their feelings. GROW SOME MOTHER******** HAIR ON YOUR CHEST.

People who complained about this should be fined for disgracing the human race.

Note: It's not that their fat. it's not that your bald, or ugly, or whatever offended you. It's the fact you think your hurt feelings are worth 2.3 million dollars.

Cheeze_Pavilion:

Malignis:

You are making a straw man argument here, perhaps without meaning to. I believe what he means is that killing a killer (A killer being defined as someone or something that kills) does not make you any less of a killer yourself.

No, he's equivocating on what the words 'murderer' and 'killer' mean. He's using them in one place to mean a person who commits an unjustified killing, and in another to mean a person who commits a justified killing--that's equivocating.

'Murder is the unlawful killing of a human person with malice aforethought, as defined in Common Law countries. Murder is generally distinguished from other forms of homicide by the elements of malice aforethought and the lack of lawful justification'

Killing someone intentionally, if they are a murderer themselves or not, makes you a murderer. There is no justification for murder, and there is no excuse therefore my comment still stands.

Here is the definition of a bigot:
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

Being bigoted against bigots, DOES IN FACT MAKE YOU A BIGOT.

But I'm not 'utterly intolerant' of his beliefs. I'm justifiably, rationally, and supportably intolerant--hence, not 'utterly'. See the difference? It's a huge one. You missed the function of the word 'utterly' in that definition.

The word 'Utterly' does not excuse you of being a bigot against bigots. It doesn't mean 'oh, well if you have something to back it up you can ignore everything after the word 'utterly''. In fact obtaining justifications and rational arguments makes you more of a bigot, since you are trying to support your argument, everyone is a bigot, it's not a question of whether you are one, it's a question of whether you are one for better reasons then the person you are arguing with. I only laughed at the fact that people were making a fuss over information that wasn't accurate, and over a console that cannot formulate an opinion.

Skrapt:

Cheeze_Pavilion:

Malignis:

You are making a straw man argument here, perhaps without meaning to. I believe what he means is that killing a killer (A killer being defined as someone or something that kills) does not make you any less of a killer yourself.

No, he's equivocating on what the words 'murderer' and 'killer' mean. He's using them in one place to mean a person who commits an unjustified killing, and in another to mean a person who commits a justified killing--that's equivocating.

'Murder is the unlawful killing of a human person with malice aforethought, as defined in Common Law countries. Murder is generally distinguished from other forms of homicide by the elements of malice aforethought and the lack of lawful justification'

Killing someone intentionally, if they are a murderer themselves or not, makes you a murderer. There is no justification for murder, and there is no excuse therefore my comment still stands.

Here is the definition of a bigot:
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

Being bigoted against bigots, DOES IN FACT MAKE YOU A BIGOT.

But I'm not 'utterly intolerant' of his beliefs. I'm justifiably, rationally, and supportably intolerant--hence, not 'utterly'. See the difference? It's a huge one. You missed the function of the word 'utterly' in that definition.

The word 'Utterly' does not excuse you of being a bigot against bigots. It doesn't mean 'oh, well if you have something to back it up you can ignore everything after the word 'utterly''. In fact obtaining justifications and rational arguments makes you more of a bigot, since you are trying to support your argument, everyone is a bigot, it's not a question of whether you are one, it's a question of whether you are one for better reasons then the person you are arguing with. I only laughed at the fact that people were making a fuss over information that wasn't accurate, and over a console that cannot formulate an opinion.

Isn't that the equal of saying that you're racist toward Nazis? Why do people feel the need to waste their lives arguing over the nuances of the English language.

Mathew952:

Isn't that the equal of saying that you're racist toward Nazis?

Nazi's are not a race, they were a political party in Germany

BlueMage:

I'm blaming someone who refused to take action when the opportunity presented itself. That lion isn't going to stop attempting to eat you if you ask nicely - you MAKE it stop.

So, to go with your example, no, it doesn't give them the right to continue hitting you with a bat, but its your own moronic fault if you refuse to move when they try.

So why all the vitriol for someone who's a moron when there's someone who is actually *evil* involved?

Eye Spider:

Cheeze_Pavilion:

Eye Spider:

I'm not concerned at all about what WiiFit says about people being fat

But in comment 112 you said: "it sounds like the game isn't insulting people for their physical appearance (how can it, it doesn't have eyes), it is commenting on the player's BMI rating. That is an inescapable medical fact and if even that can't be said in plain terms for fear of offending then we've become a society of pussies."

You can't say you're "not concerned at all" right after you say "if the game can't say inescapable medical facts in plain terms then we've become a society of pussies." You can't be concerned and not concerned about the same thing in the same sense at the same time. That's just basic law of non-contradiction.

Then you misunderstood me, perhaps I wasn't as clear in making my point as I could have been. The thing that pisses me off about this whole story, when I'm not laughing about it that is, isn't about WiiFit, the BMI index, or any of the issues surrounding it's use (WiiFit is not the only fitness/entertainment product to use the BMI, countless fashion magazine features, websites and fitness programmes have used it in the past, it's been around since the mid-1800's). It's the fact that Nintendo was called to apologise, and did so, which will only feed into this culture of political correctness and give justification to those that sit there waiting to be offended by the media so they can write to the press in their righteous indignation calling for this and that to be banned.

I think my use of the phrase "inescapable medical fact" was a mistake since you've interpreted it in a different way to what I meant by it. I'll use another example: If a woman takes a home pregnancy test, and it says she's pregnant, then regardless of its reliability, the inescapable medical fact is that a diagnosis has been made, that she's pregnant. She will then go to a doctor to get this confirmed.

Yeah but, according to that logic, calling for the pregnancy test to indicate to her that she's pregnant by means other than calling her a 'knocked up slut' would "only feed into this culture of political correctness and give justification to those that sit there waiting to be offended by the media."

Really, political correctness is just tact and politeness, something we all should have learned as children. To me, the *real* failing that parents have is that they aren't teaching their kids to behave in a civil manner, letting them run around acting like huge dicks to perfectly innocent people, with the excuse that they're 'telling it like it is' and other tripe.

That's the real failing of parents--raising kids who can't express themselves *without* being offensive.

Skrapt:

Killing someone intentionally, if they are a murderer themselves or not, makes you a murderer. There is no justification for murder, and there is no excuse therefore my comment still stands.

Again--you've being sloppy with your words. Of course there's "no justification for murder"; that's like talking about a married bachelor.

However, you're wrong that there is no justification for killing a killer. Although we don't use it anymore, in older legal systems if you murdered someone, that could result in being declared an "outlaw," someone literally 'beyond the law' which meant that you could be killed by the murder victim's kinfolk, or sometimes by anyone in society.

We retain this concept of legal self-help. If it helps you understand, think of a contract where I fail to live up to my promise. That's a breach. Now under certain conditions, *you* can breach the contract in response too. However, even though we both breached the contract, only *I* failed to live up to the contact's terms.

breach=intolerant

failed to live up to the terms of the contract=bigot

See how your logic is flawed because you're conflating 'utter' intolerance with justified intolerance?

Here is the definition of a bigot:
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

Being bigoted against bigots, DOES IN FACT MAKE YOU A BIGOT.

But I'm not 'utterly intolerant' of his beliefs. I'm justifiably, rationally, and supportably intolerant--hence, not 'utterly'. See the difference? It's a huge one. You missed the function of the word 'utterly' in that definition.

The word 'Utterly' does not excuse you of being a bigot against bigots.

No, but it excuses me of being intolerant of them, which means I'm not a bigot in the first place--you need to be less sloppy with your words. That's why you're so confused--you can't keep the concepts straight.

Mathew952:

Skrapt:

Cheeze_Pavilion:

Malignis:

You are making a straw man argument here, perhaps without meaning to. I believe what he means is that killing a killer (A killer being defined as someone or something that kills) does not make you any less of a killer yourself.

No, he's equivocating on what the words 'murderer' and 'killer' mean. He's using them in one place to mean a person who commits an unjustified killing, and in another to mean a person who commits a justified killing--that's equivocating.

'Murder is the unlawful killing of a human person with malice aforethought, as defined in Common Law countries. Murder is generally distinguished from other forms of homicide by the elements of malice aforethought and the lack of lawful justification'

Killing someone intentionally, if they are a murderer themselves or not, makes you a murderer. There is no justification for murder, and there is no excuse therefore my comment still stands.

Here is the definition of a bigot:
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

Being bigoted against bigots, DOES IN FACT MAKE YOU A BIGOT.

But I'm not 'utterly intolerant' of his beliefs. I'm justifiably, rationally, and supportably intolerant--hence, not 'utterly'. See the difference? It's a huge one. You missed the function of the word 'utterly' in that definition.

The word 'Utterly' does not excuse you of being a bigot against bigots. It doesn't mean 'oh, well if you have something to back it up you can ignore everything after the word 'utterly''. In fact obtaining justifications and rational arguments makes you more of a bigot, since you are trying to support your argument, everyone is a bigot, it's not a question of whether you are one, it's a question of whether you are one for better reasons then the person you are arguing with. I only laughed at the fact that people were making a fuss over information that wasn't accurate, and over a console that cannot formulate an opinion.

Isn't that the equal of saying that you're racist toward Nazis? Why do people feel the need to waste their lives arguing over the nuances of the English language.

Because people no longer have any substantive arguments to back up their bigoted opinions, and so the only thing left open for them to disagree with people who think we shouldn't treat people with disrespect just because of what they look like are things like this ;-D

Skrapt:

Mathew952:

Isn't that the equal of saying that you're racist toward Nazis?

Nazi's are not a race, they were a political party in Germany

Well, they *thought* they were a race.

In any case, this gets to the heart of the issue--if anyone who is intolerant of anyone else is a bigot, then Mathew952 is right: we wind up having to say stupid things like 'people who got Jews out of Europe to avoid the death camps were being bigoted towards the Nazi's because they were intolerant of their belief in a Final Solution'.

Mathew952:
Jeez, were they able to put down the cheeseburger long enough to make a lawsuit?

I hate most Americans now.

What does this have to do with Americans? This was a British family, wasn't it?

GODWIN!

Cheeze_Pavilion:

Again--you've being sloppy with your words. Of course there's "no justification for murder"; that's like talking about a married bachelor.

However, you're wrong that there is no justification for killing a killer. Although we don't use it anymore, in older legal systems if you murdered someone, that could result in being declared an "outlaw," someone literally 'beyond the law' which meant that you could be killed by the murder victim's kinfolk, or sometimes by anyone in society.

We retain this concept of legal self-help. If it helps you understand, think of a contract where I fail to live up to my promise. That's a breach. Now under certain conditions, *you* can breach the contract in response too. However, even though we both breached the contract, only *I* failed to live up to the contact's terms.

breach=intolerant

failed to live up to the terms of the contract=bigot

See how your logic is flawed because you're conflating 'utter' intolerance with justified intolerance?

Just because intolerance is justified doesn't mean you aren't a bigot, are you actually listening to me at all? I've said 3 times now, it's not wrong being a bigot, it all depends on your reasons behind it. And using the outlaw argument is a little invalid, considering it doesn't exist in most modern societies, I don't care whether you feel someone hasn't lived up to their promise or 'contract', taking matters into your own hands and committing an equally reprehensible act, and saying afterward 'well he did it first' is no excuse.

No, but it excuses me of being intolerant of them, which means I'm not a bigot in the first place--you need to be less sloppy with your words. That's why you're so confused--you can't keep the concepts straight.

Just because you have evidence doesn't make intolerance excusable, it just shows how intolerant that you feel you need to gather information for your belief. Me not keeping concepts straight? I've said the same thing 3 times yet it can't seem to make it's way into your brain.

Well, they *thought* they were a race.

they never thought they were a race, they held an 'ideal' in their mind that every German should be blonde haired and blue eyed, which is considered trying to create a racial ideal. Yes it's possible to be racist against people who have committed grave acts against humanity. All I've been trying to say is it's possible for someone to be the same thing they are accusing their enemy of, it's only down to who has the better reasons.

Kikosemmek:
No one ever says we must respond to people we deem tedious or insulting,

I don't think what you or these other people are saying is "tedious or insulting"; I think it's harmful and dangerous. Significant difference.

Is Wii Fit using the word fat? Where is this proven that Nintendo is actually using this word? I thought the phrase Nintendo was using was "over weight", no?

Where's the proof that this actually happened to this girl? This whole thing sounds made-up. If this article is to be believed, the girl weighs around 90 pounds and is 4'9"? That comes out to a BMI of roughly 19.5--I call bull-shit on the Daily Mail. For the same height, to go overweight (+25) on the BMI she would have to weigh around 120lbs meaning that she would need to weigh 9 stone instead of 6--her believed weight would have to be off by 50%. I don't believe it.

Isn't the Daily Mail a scandal rag, anyways? Isn't it like the US's FoxNews? Complete and utter bullshit?

Cheeze_Pavilion:

Kikosemmek:
No one ever says we must respond to people we deem tedious or insulting,

I don't think what you or these other people are saying is "tedious or insulting"; I think it's harmful and dangerous. Significant difference.

If you don't let it get to you, it doesn't harm you. Stop caring so much about what other people think, the only person you ever really have to answer to is yourself. People can play on insecurities and I know it's difficult to ignore someone insulting you about something you don't like about yourself, but remember everyone can change, for better or worse.

Isn't the Daily Mail a scandal rag, anyways? Isn't it like the US's FoxNews? Complete and utter bullshit?

it's just a gossip column that likes blowing things out of proportion, about 80% of Britains newspapers are the same, and even those that could be considered fair and unbias get their facts wrong so many times I no longer read them.

Skrapt:

Just because intolerance is justified doesn't mean you aren't a bigot, are you actually listening to me at all? I've said 3 times now,

You can say it as many times as you like--you still won't be right. Basically what you're doing is you're saying '2+2=5' and I say 'no' then you say '1+3=5' and I say 'no' then you say '4+0=5' and...

...you get the picture.

Skrapt:

Cheeze_Pavilion:

Kikosemmek:
No one ever says we must respond to people we deem tedious or insulting,

I don't think what you or these other people are saying is "tedious or insulting"; I think it's harmful and dangerous. Significant difference.

If you don't let it get to you, it doesn't harm you.

I'm not, and it doesn't. However, it *does* harm others, and I don't like seeing others harmed.

Cheeze_Pavilion:

You can say it as many times as you like--you still won't be right. Basically what you're doing is you're saying '2+2=5' and I say 'no' then you say '1+3=5' and I say 'no' then you say '4+0=5' and...

...you get the picture.

I'm not, and it doesn't. However, it *does* harm others, and I don't like seeing others harmed.

Words only hurt if you let them get to you, I don't understand why this is a hard concept to grasp...

Anyway, I'm stepping out because even though I'm not insulting you in any way or form, you're still taking offense and not listening to what I'm saying.

Skrapt:

Cheeze_Pavilion:

You can say it as many times as you like--you still won't be right. Basically what you're doing is you're saying '2+2=5' and I say 'no' then you say '1+3=5' and I say 'no' then you say '4+0=5' and...

...you get the picture.

ok, I'm stepping out because even though I'm not insulting you in any way or form, you're still taking offense and not listening whatsoever.

I'm not taking offense and I am listening. The problem is you refuse to see that there's a difference between justified and unjustified intolerance, and that's what distinguishes a bigot from a non-bigot.

Even when I give you an example from contract law because you don't like my other examples, you just dismiss it with:

"I don't care whether you feel someone hasn't lived up to their promise or 'contract', taking matters into your own hands and committing an equally reprehensible act, and saying afterward 'well he did it first' is no excuse."

when it's not me that feels that way--it's the way the law actually works. It's not my fault you think I'm not listening because you don't take my responses to you seriously.

Skrapt:

I'm not, and it doesn't. However, it *does* harm others, and I don't like seeing others harmed.

Words only hurt if you let them get to you, I don't understand why this is a hard concept to grasp...

No--words only hurt if the *person they are directed towards lets them hurt them*. Sure I can control my own reactions; however, what about someone who can't or won't? Should they just be abandoned to the dicks of the world? I say no.

Cheeze_Pavilion:

I'm not taking offense and I am listening. The problem is you refuse to see that there's a difference between justified and unjustified intolerance, and that's what distinguishes a bigot from a non-bigot.

ok, I'm simply going to quote myself here, because this comment proves you have not been listening...

it's not wrong being a bigot, it all depends on your reasons behind it

everyone is a bigot, it's not a question of whether you are one, it's a question of whether you are one for better reasons then the person you are arguing with

And insulting someone for being a Bigot makes you a bigot, a bigot with good intentions but a bigot nonetheless

righthanded:
Is Wii Fit using the word fat? Where is this proven that Nintendo is actually using this word? I thought the phrase Nintendo was using was "over weight", no?

Where's the proof that this actually happened to this girl? This whole thing sounds made-up. If this article is to be believed, the girl weighs around 90 pounds and is 4'9"? That comes out to a BMI of roughly 19.5--I call bull-shit on the Daily Mail. For the same height, to go overweight (+25) on the BMI she would have to weigh around 120lbs meaning that she would need to weigh 9 stone instead of 6--her believed weight would have to be off by 50%. I don't believe it.

Isn't the Daily Mail a scandal rag, anyways? Isn't it like the US's FoxNews? Complete and utter bullshit?

That's what I said back in comment 115.

However, for the kind of people with an ax to grind about political correctness in America, the fact that this is about a flawed program and an English kid? Please--they're not going to let the FACTS get in the way of their chance to whine in yet another forum.

Skrapt:

Cheeze_Pavilion:

I'm not taking offense and I am listening. The problem is you refuse to see that there's a difference between justified and unjustified intolerance, and that's what distinguishes a bigot from a non-bigot.

ok, I'm simply going to quote myself here, because this comment proves you have not been listening...

it's not wrong being a bigot, it all depends on your reasons behind it

everyone is a bigot, it's not a question of whether you are one, it's a question of whether you are one for better reasons then the person you are arguing with

And insulting someone for being a Bigot makes you a bigot, a bigot with good intentions but a bigot nonetheless

Yeah--I *have* listened to all that. And I told you from the beginning, it makes no sense.

When you say: "it's not wrong being a bigot, it all depends on your reasons behind it" you make no sense--being a bigot *is* to be wrong. This makes as much sense as saying 'bachelors aren't necessarily unmarried'.

When you say: "everyone is a bigot, it's not a question of whether you are one, it's a question of whether you are one for better reasons then the person you are arguing with" you misunderstand what it is to be a bigot--to be a bigot is to continue to believe something negative about a type of person without *any* better reasons, in *spite* of better reasons, *without* any good reasons.

When you say "And insulting someone for being a Bigot makes you a bigot, a bigot with good intentions but a bigot nonetheless" that confuses insulting someone with being a bigot. That's like saying if I insult someone for being illogical, then I'm illogical myself--that's simply not true.

You just don't understand what the word bigot means. It's that simple, and that's what I keep trying to point out to you, and when I do you ignore my reasons even when they come out of your own definition that you quote to me.

No you are confusing what bigot means when it has already been quoted to you it has got nothing to do with reasons, being a bigot is to be intolerant of someone else regardless of reasons. Therefore hating someone for being intolerant (bigot) means you yourself are intolerant(bigot) of them.

my opinion is go wii. so what if it isnt 100% PC, the game is trying to be as realistic as possible. so they included a scale and BMI, and they are marketing it as a crappy exercise/weight loss plan. but since nothing is perfect there are some errors and if your not fat and it calls you that then you can probably figure that out, i am pretty sure in the manual it says IT MAY BE WRONG.

and for all the people who are complaining about people getting called over weight by a game FFS. its not that big a deal.

A Username Not In Use:
[quote=KikosemmekI never took pills or took a counseling session to get thin. I work out and I eat well in order to get thin, and I do so at a slow, personally comfortable pace because it is of my own accord.[/quote]

The coucilling and the pills was not to get thin, it was for deppression which me an my theripist traced to the resentment that I still fell towards my time at school, the losing weight can about after I realised that I was eating to make myself feel better which I now no longer do, and as I am an active person it is dropping at a steady pace, it might drop quicker if I increase my activities a bit more.

i think he was just talking about what he was talking did, not talking about you at all.

Skrapt:
No you are confusing what bigot means when it has already been quoted to you it has got nothing to do with reasons, being a bigot is to be intolerant of someone else regardless of reasons. Therefore hating someone for being intolerant (bigot) means you yourself are intolerant(bigot) of them.

Then what words mean 'a person who is intolerant of someone else *not regardless of reason* but rather *for no good reason*'?

See your problem? If you define 'bigot' the way you want here it no longer becomes a pejorative term, and you still have to come up with another term that applies to you and not me, and that term has to be pejorative.

Just like if you call both justified and unjustified killings 'murder' that doesn't mean you get to *treat* justified and unjustified killings the same outside of your wacky lexicography exercise. You can say 2+2=5, but that just means you have to compensate by saying 2+5=6. Same difference.

In short, invent any word for the concepts you want, you can't change the underlying reality that there's a difference between what you are doing and what I am doing, and that difference means I'm doing something praiseworthy and you're doing something blameworthy.

Cheeze_Pavilion:

You can say 2+2=5, but that just means you have to compensate by saying 2+5=6. Same difference. Invent any word for the concepts you want, you can't change the underlying reality that there's a difference between what you are doing and what I am doing, and that difference means I'm doing something praiseworthy and you're doing something blameworthy.

wait, what have I done that's blameworthy? And again please read what I have already written, you just reread back to me what I have already said and have been saying all along! Read my posts the whole point behind them was that both groups can be bigots, just some are doing it for better reasons then others, which is what you just said!