No, but it does illustrate how short sighted and rather silly your assertion is, given the entire context of this debate.

I get it, you want to try and shift the blame back to West to support your assertion that the raison d'etre for Muslim rage is Western meddling. But it just doesn't hold.

My contention is that while bigotry is undesirable, contemporary reactions to bigotry are disproportionate to its potential harm. See here, here and here.

The examples that MrWookie provides of the costs of bigotry are mostly examples of bigotry backed up by coercion. Some would argue that trying to prevent bigotry would help stop these harmful actions, but it would be equally legitimate to claim that trying to prevent coercion would as well. Additionally, attempting to prevent coercion could help those coerced in non-bigoted ways.

You could argue that targeting the roots of a problem may have other positive results and/or be more cost-effective. I would not be surprised if this were true. But at the moment, arguments I've seen along these lines seem very speculative and unscientific (if they don't just simply assert that Bigotry Is Wrong And Therefore We Should Do Something About It). I could certainly envisage a scenario where it would not be true (e.g. if it is very hard to get people to change their beliefs/have their children believe something different, or if the criminal justice system is very effective). Also, some statements of bigotry might be very unlikely to eventually result in harm.

Thus, I suspect that voicing/acting in opposition to bigotry, like many ostensibly charitable actions, is not so much about its actual consequences, but signaling to others that you share their values in order to reap the benefits of in-group solidarity.

Immigration, the ground zero mosque, and the Juan Williams scandal are inseparable from discussions of bigotry. If you don't like that, stay out of those threads.

No you are not explaining yourself badly. This is an excellent point that I think needs to be thought about much more deeply (by both sides of any argument). I think your post can be elaborated on and debated much more deeply by each side.

An irrational fear of Muslims is what let the Iraq war propaganda work and lead to invasion. That's a whole lot of harm.

Lol as if jews or christians have a history of getting along with anyone they have ever come in contact with.

See my second link. It's a problem with democracy/government use of force.

I did.

No, there's not.

This is, of course, the most accurate statement.

But that's not a clincher. Perhaps this is just me but I like to go for the throat of an argument as it were. If he is a bigot (I'm not accusing anyone) you are letting him off the hook because now the debate becomes about subjective interpretations of what type of person is and isn't dangerous. Montius can come in with 50 Koran quotes about murdering infidels then you can quote evilbible.com then he can say that isn't relevant because ... and some muslims think this and some americans think the other ad infinitum.

If you instead frame the discussion around the question "what actions do you think are wrong" you can at least start on firmer ground. If you get him to say I think action X is wrong regardless of who is doing it, and then you point out that both muslims and non muslims do X then you will bring any bigotry front and centre and can deal with it on it's own terms.

It's like the immigrations debate. Someone says immigrants increase crime rates and you have to go off and chase down stats to show they don't. All that work isn't even acknowledged and the same person will then jump to oh but they don't pay taxes so you show that isn't true then they jump to they get free medical care and on and on. If you just ask can you legitimately use the initiation of force to stop someone from living where they want to live and working where they want to work assuming those arrangements are voluntary it's cuts through all the nonsense and gets to the point far quicker.

This is all just off the top of my head by the way and I may be way off. I'm just typing as I think so don't expect it to be fully consistent. Please poke holes in what I'm saying.

I would disagree with this -- Bush did indeed make some Christianity statements (as to be expected as the leader of predominantly Christian nation -- if you think what he said was bad just what do you think of Osama Bin Laden's statements or those of predominantly muslim nations such as Iran? -- are those acceptable?), but make no mistake -- if 9/11 did not happen we would have never invaded Afghanistan. Iraq probably still would have happened as Saddam's defiance provided the perfect opportunity to secure future oil reserves, and whether you believe it or not peak oil is on the horizon without major changes in human behavior across the globe, and oil is obviously a necessity to U.S. quality of life.

We also need to understand that Afghanistan and Iraq are two completely separate wars.

Afghanistan would have never happened if Al Qaeda had not sent planes into the WTC on 9/11, followed by the refusal of the Taliban government at the time to cooperate with the U.S. Also, the U.S. has gone to extreme, arguably over-extreme lengths to avoid civilians casualties. But when the opposing forces believe in using civilians as human shields eventually the blame needs to be put on them for the loss not us. There is still a war that needs to be won here, and we are on the right side, not them.

The bolded is obviously not true. Just search any immigration thread for "sovereign will of the people" or "they broke the law" and you'll see that yes, tons of people think you can do just this, but for no good reason at all other than lines in the sand. And bigotry.

Did I assert that they did? Exactly what kind of history based tu quoque fallacy are you trying to pull here?

Again, what does this have to do with what is occuring around the world today? There is a disproportionate number of conflicts and instances around the world today that involve Muslim extremists compared with other religious extremists. Pointing this very real fact out is not some sort of bigotry.

Right and that's a quick way to get the bigotry out in the open. You find out if their principles are universal and if not why not, ie what is the difference as to why you can do X in one situation but not the other. Once you establish the difference is cosmetic and arbitrary you can proceed as you wish. I'm not saying what you're arguing is wrong merely that you can possibly save yourself some time.

Didn't you read the thread? The people who used my magical phrases were 100% convinced that their bigotry was not bigotry and that there was a HUGE distinction and that it wasn't cosmetic or arbitrary. And then, when called out on that, then they inevitably throw up the "taxezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!!!!!" and "crimezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!!!!!" excuses.

Wookie, do you think I am a bigot? Honest question.

I mean, for you, you consider the difference between, "I can forcibly stop an American from doing X," and "I can forcibly stop a Mexican from doing X" is arbitrary, but it's not arbitrary for 99.9999% of the world.

I dunno. You lynched anyone lately?

Nope, I cannot recall where I have ever done anything of the sort.

So no, then. You probably hold some bigoted beliefs, though.

I mean, I do too. I am bigoted against men who dress like thugs. I was assaulted by someone meeting that description. He was black, but I don't get nervous around black guys in suits. I am wary around white guys in similar clothing, though. I probably won't shake that.

So we have won the war on drugs?

Of course we haven't. I'm opposed to it. But this doesn't address my argument.

People are having difficulty with basic definitions?

Time for me to sign up for the We're All ****ed Party.

But you said there wasn't enough nines in post #92 (see edit). This is contradicting yourself???

If I fear Muslims, but am philosophically opposed to harming others, I'm not going to harm anyone. If I don't fear Muslims, but I'm not opposed to harming others, I won't harm Muslims out of bigotry, but I might harm people for other reasons. I think it's clear that willingness to impose harm is the major factor here (and, I would argue, what we should focus on).