The dictionary definition of "bigot" specifies beliefs and opinions so your argument fails.

If someone proposed outlawing homosexuality in the US , you can be sure that fundamentalist and evangelical Christians would support it. Immoral belief will lead immoral action when the opportunity presents itself.

Bobo was agreeing with the claim that anyone who believes that homosexual behavior is a sin is a "homophobic bigot."

Since I do believe that homosexual behavior is a sin, by Bobo's definition I myself am a homophobic bigot.

That being the case, I would have no problem wearing the label "Homophobic Bigot" as a badge of honor, were it not for the fact that the label "homophobic" often suggests holding to beliefs that I myself do not hold. Unlike the stereotypical homophobe, I believe that all persons should be treated with respect. I believe that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, that none of us are perfect, and as such those engaging in homosexual behavior are sinning, but I've committed other sins that most homosexuals have not committed, so I'm in no way better than the homosexual, all things considered.

Those of us trusting in Christ for the salvation of our souls are not better than those who are not trusting in Christ for the salvation of their souls, but we are better off in that eternal life is possible only through Jesus.

No, I want a cite on your claim that David Hume conceded that empiricism must dead-end in solipsism.

Rationality doesn't require a god. Your claim otherwise rests on the supposed fact that non-theistic accounts of rationality cannot be shown to be sound and theistic accounts of rationality can. However, as you acknowledge here, theistic accounts of rationality also can't be shown to be sound. Instead, you use a circular argument to ground them. Guess what? Non-theistic accounts of rationality can also use circular arguments to ground rationality.

Okay, thanks. Now I understand your point.

www.sympatico.ca/saburns/pg0220.htm

David Hume, following in the steps of Berkeley, brought to the empirical scepticism of Descartes and Berkeley an atheist's refusal to permit the God escape clause. Hume was a Scottish philosopher and historian who argued in the empiricist tradition that human knowledge arises only from sense experience. His most philosophically significant works were A Treatise of Human Nature (1739-1740) and An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding (1748). Hume raised perplexing and troublesome doubts about many of the basic assumptions upon which the laws of logic and science are constructed. As a result of following the Inside-Out tradition of assuming the primacy of consciousness, he finds himself firmly painted into the Solipsist's corner.

"Experience is a principle, which instructs me in the several conjunctions of objects for the past. Habit is another principle, which determines me to expect the same for the future; and both of them conspiring to operate upon the imagination, make me form certain ideas in a more intense and lively manner, than others, which are not attended with the same advantages. Without this quality, by which the mind enlivens some ideas beyond others (which seemingly is so trivial, and so little founded on reason) we cou'd never assent to any argument, nor carry our view beyond those few objects, which are present to our senses. Nay, even to these objects we cou'd never attribute any existence, but what was dependent on the senses; and must comprehend them entirely in that succession of perceptions, which constitutes our self or person. Nay farther, even with relation to that succession, we cou'd only admit of those perceptions, which are immediately present to our consciousness, nor cou'd those lively images, with which the memory presents us, be ever receiv'd as true pictures of past perceptions. The memory, senses, and understanding are, therefore, all of them founded on the imagination, or the vivacity of our ideas." (David Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature(6) )

Hume clearly finds the logical consequence of his Inside-Out premises singularly dissatisfying. His "escape clause" is at once more fanciful and more practical than his predecessors' policy of adopting the premise of God, if perhaps not properly philosophical. He ignores the problem and goes off to play a game of backgammon:

"Most fortunately it happens, that since reason is incapable of dispelling these clouds, nature herself suffices to that purpose, and cures me of this philosophical melancholy and delirium, either by relaxing this bent of mind, or by some avocation, and lively impression of my senses, which obliterate all these chimeras. I dine, I play a game of backgammon, I converse, and am merry with my friends; and when after three or four hours' amusement, I wou'd return to these speculations, they appear so cold, and strain'd, and ridiculous, that I cannot find in my heart to enter into them any farther." (David Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature(6) )

First, those quotations are from Hume's A Treatise of Human Nature, his first major work, published when he was only 28, not late in life.

Second, neither of those quotations concede that empiricism dead-ends in solipsism, but rather express Hume's view that reason on its own is unable to ground anything in Descartes' project of radical doubt (it is always possible to doubt a conclusion, including even of your own mind). The author of your essay seems to think this concedes solipsism, but AFAIK Hume did not thnk this. Is there some citation from Hume himself that you can use to back up this claim?

It follows straightforwardly that if you can doubt any conclusion then you can doubt solipsism, so Hume would be wrong to concede to it anyway (not that I think he did).

As to Lagtight's position, imagine a chaotic world in which everything occurs randomly. It's not clear to me as to why, in this world, I can't by chance find myself in some pocket of it where I by chance acquire rationality. And if I can't, I could certainly think I'm rational. Then all we're saying is that in some worlds rationality is impossible and in some world's it's possible. In some worlds I'll merely think I'm rational when I'm not. None of this is going to tell me anything about which world I'm actually in. None of this has got me any closer to a god.

Okay, so Bigot is about opinion and belief.

What does that even mean if the very next thing you do is explaining that the issue is not the opinion and belief but the acting out on it?

Did Lagtight argue to outlaw homosexuality? What does he want to do them?

If all he says is: "I do believe homosexuality is a sin. But people are free to chose if and what sins they chose to indulge in, as long as it doesnt hurt 3rd parties." - That would be quite different from: "I do believe homosexuality is a sin and we should club every ****** to death!"

Isnt it immoral to assume that people might act immoral? What are you doing in order to prevent these potentials?

Sorry, but from my POV, your position is essentially the same as Lagtights, just he makes homosexual people the subject of his fears, while you make bigot people the subject of your fears.
I sincerely only want to know what exactly you both would do. Given you were in power. What rules, regulations, policies... would you impose on your subject?

Would you outlaw it (homosexuality/bigotry)? What punishments would you impose? What lenghts would you go to ensure the sin/immorality (homosexuality/bigotry) ends?

It is irrational to believe that rationality can arise by chaos. Chaos produces more chaos, not information. Please give even one known real-life example in which chaos produced information. If I blow something up with dynamite, it ain't gonna produce a complex information system. If you can come up with an real-life example showing otherwise, please share.

1. Homosexual people are not "the subject of my fears." I do not fear homosexuals. That idea that Fundamentalist Christians fear homosexuals is a by-product of some perverts in our culture propagating the use of stupid words like homophobia.

2. I do not want to outlaw homosexual behavior.

"Information" is just going to be introducing some more unclear terms. Let's stick with rationality.

In the pure chance world, why can't whatever conditions are required for rationality occur by chance? You might think it incredibly unlikely but it wouldn't be impossible. Anything is possible in that world.

And there's still the second problem, could you think you're rational in a world where you're not?

Why not?

More importantly, do you want to outlaw bigotry?

To some degree, yes, of course. Laws preventing businesses discriminating in hiring or who they offer services to for instance.

Too hard to enforce. Plus, it would be inconsistent to enforce laws against homosexual behavior without also enforcing laws against adultery. And also given that perverts are wielding more and more power in our institutions, our nation might be at a point-of-no-return anyway, barring a major cultural shift in attitudes toward sexual perversion.

I thought we had established that bigotry is the thought, not the acting out.
In your case you want to outlaw discrimination, not bigotry.

Then I have no idea where this line of questioning of yours is going. It's not like anyone can enforce a law against a thought anyway. What's the point here?

So you don’t really object to anti-homosexuality laws per se, you just think the implementation would be too hard.

If you could enforce those laws against homosexual behavior/adultery consistently..........what would that look like in a society?

Dunno, it just seems that freedom of thoughts (and speech) these days is confused by many people with corresponding action.

Correct.

It would depend on how prevelant those activities were in the society prior to the implementation of the laws. Such laws would be essentially impossible to implement in the United States.

I don't think anyone is under the impression you're going to demand actual legislation, just asking what your desired legal system would look like. Don't forget, these laws used to exist in the United States, in the UK, in fact all over the world, despite being difficult to implement.

What would the penalties look like for homosexual behaviour, if there were to be such laws? Where would the line start (e.g. would same-sex romantic kissing be included in the list of illegal behaviour)?

For clarity, and perhaps I missed it, could you explain why you think "homosexual activities" should be illegal?

Afghanistan circa 1999 should do and it should be illegal because it's a sin. LDO, who are we to make laws that contradict the almighty?