How bigoted of you to name-call in response to a listing of specific observations. More appropriate would be a pointing
out of the erroneous entries in that listing.
Usually I agree with you, E, but this time I think you're wrong.
You said that you found that fundamentists generally had certain very negative characteristics. You accused them as a class of not caring about suffering, ignoring reason and evidence, etc. It was a broad assault on the integrity of an entire class of people.
First, how can one point out any erroroneous entries in that? If a poster (not, of course, I posted that he generally found women posters on SI to be ignorant, stupid, asinine, and better off barefoot, pregnant, and chained to the stove, how could you point out erroneous listings in that? They are merely his observations. What should the response be? To let the posting go unchallenged? To point out some specific postings by women that were not those things? Response would be easy: either a) okay, there are rare exceptions, and you were able to find a few, or b) in my opinion those were, indeed, ignorant, stupid, asinine, etc.
Perhaps it was overly strong of jlallen to call you bigoted, but when I read your post myself I was also disappointed in the negative generalizations you drew and your attack on a whole class of people. From some posters here, I would find such a post unsurprising; from you, I expect better. I hope you were just having a bad brain day. |
