danivon wrote:How about UK based dictionary?

http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english-thesaurus/bigot


bigot:
noun

= fanatic, racist, extremist, sectarian, maniac, fiend (informal), zealot, persecutor, dogmatist • "a narrow-minded bigot with pretensions to power"

Bbauska - why are you so into quoting a thesaurus? A dictionary defines words. A thesaurus lists possible synomyms.

By the dictionary definition, he comes across to me as a bigot. He's welcome to try and sue me.

But from the sounds of things, your calling him a bigot (and fyi, I do agree!) is on the political correct side of things, if however you claimed a homosexual was anything negative, then they would come down upon you and take you to court. The free speech over there appears to us Yanks that it's only free if you are politically correct?

No, Tom. It is down to whether what is said or written is actionable, not whether one is being 'pc'.

Claiming something negative about homosexuality is one thing. Claiming that a particular homosexual is bad in a particular way is another.

Calling someone a danger to children (and sending it to their employer, as he did) if there is no evidence for it is actionable. Calling someone a bigot when there is evidence for it is not. Now, if we can actually find where he is called a racist, and if it is not true (as in, we don't find that he's said/written racist stuff) then yes, he can sue. Regardless of his 'position'.

Try reading up on defamation law (the USA has the same concept, too).

Anyway, have you come up with a reason why US law can he used to takedown content just because someone makes an accusation of breach of copyright?

danivon wrote:Bbauska - why are you so into quoting a thesaurus? A dictionary defines words. A thesaurus lists possible synomyms.

By the dictionary definition, he comes across to me as a bigot. He's welcome to try and sue me.

A "British" Thesaurus. I know you know it lists synonyms, and that is similar descriptive words. Your lack of word use looked like picking and choosing to fit your needed perception.

bbauska wrote:A "British" Thesaurus. I know you know it lists synonyms, and that is similar descriptive words. Your lack of word use looked like picking and choosing to fit your needed perception.

No, I was looking at the definition of the one word you picked out. Synonyms have their place, but they are not complete and exhaustive total equivalents. For example, a racist is a type of bigot, one who is bogoted on race lines as opposed to any other. So, calling someone a racist is, by definition, also calling them a bigot.

However, not all bigots are racist. Some - and this can particularly apply in a Scottish context - may be sectarian (Catholic v Protestant), others may be sexist, or politically bigoted. So calling someone a bigot is not the same as calling them a racist. This is why synonyms listed in a thesaurus may not always be useful.

Of course, I'm not sure what the point is you are trying to make. Rather than obtusely pointingat a wordlist, can you make an argument or put a cojent position across?

For starters, are you (and is Tom) defending the 'right' to defame someone as a 'danger to children' without any comeback? Are you saying that calling a man who does so a 'bigot' (and who as been found in a court of law to have defamed someone) is equivalent?

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:A "British" Thesaurus. I know you know it lists synonyms, and that is similar descriptive words. Your lack of word use looked like picking and choosing to fit your needed perception.

No, I was looking at the definition of the one word you picked out. Synonyms have their place, but they are not complete and exhaustive total equivalents. For example, a racist is a type of bigot, one who is bogoted on race lines as opposed to any other. So, calling someone a racist is, by definition, also calling them a bigot.

However, not all bigots are racist. Some - and this can particularly apply in a Scottish context - may be sectarian (Catholic v Protestant), others may be sexist, or politically bigoted. So calling someone a bigot is not the same as calling them a racist. This is why synonyms listed in a thesaurus may not always be useful.

Of course, I'm not sure what the point is you are trying to make. Rather than obtusely pointingat a wordlist, can you make an argument or put a cojent position across?

For starters, are you (and is Tom) defending the 'right' to defame someone as a 'danger to children' without any comeback? Are you saying that calling a man who does so a 'bigot' (and who as been found in a court of law to have defamed someone) is equivalent?

I did NOT start the discussion about Bigotry. Just responded to your short-list response definition given by you.

I do think the people getting their feelings hurt too easily because someone says they could be a bad parent need to not be so offended. That being said, it is a different story to call an employer and report that a person is a bad parent because of sexual orientation.

bbauska wrote:I did NOT start the discussion about Bigotry. Just responded to your short-list response definition given by you.

Huh? You responded to a post in which I asked where he had been called, in quotes, "Christian fanatic racist homophobe" with a link to a thesaurus.

It was not a random list of words or an attempt to define 'bigot' - I was quoting the article DF linked to and quoted, and querying their source for a literal quote. I don't care about the synonyms, what is in question is the actual words used (and alleged to have been used), and what they actually mean.

Now, when someone puts words in quotes and say that they've been used about someone, that does not mean they are claiming that something vaguely like that was said, and that you can use synonyms out of a thesaurus to back that up, based on a different quoted word or set of words. It means they are making a specific claim.

If the LifeSiteNews story is correct (and they have at least one simple error of fact in the article that DF quoted so I have grounds to be sceptical), then they are saying that an outlet in the Scottish media called him those exact words. My question is where are those particular words appearing in the Scottish media?

Because if they are not, then LSN are not just incorrect in their implication of a government action (using 'fined' when it was not a fine), but also in the way that their chosen 'free speech martyr' has been treated.

So sorry, I still don't understand the relevance of quoting a thesaurus. It doesn't help us find whether part of the Scottish media/press actually did call him a racist.

I do think the people getting their feelings hurt too easily because someone says they could be a bad parent need to not be so offended.

It was not potentially being a 'bad parent'. It was actually being a 'danger to children' with the strong implication of paedophilia. I think it's pretty clear that there is a difference, and the actual words being used are (again) key.

That being said, it is a different story to call an employer and report that a person is a bad parent because of sexual orientation.

And a step worse to say they are a 'danger to children' with the strong implication of paedophilia.

Which is why, dear bbauska, he was sued for libel after using twitter to do just that. I take it, then, that you are not joining in the defence of this man's abusing his rights to free expression?

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:I did NOT start the discussion about Bigotry. Just responded to your short-list response definition given by you.

Huh? You responded to a post in which I asked where he had been called, in quotes, "Christian fanatic racist homophobe" with a link to a thesaurus.

It was not a random list of words or an attempt to define 'bigot' - I was quoting the article DF linked to and quoted, and querying their source for a literal quote.

Now, when you put words in quotes and say that they've been used about someone, that does not mean you are claiming that something like that was said, and that you can use synonyms out of a thesaurus to back that up, based on a different quoted word or set of words.

If the LifeSiteNews story is correct (and they have at least one simple error of fact in the article that DF quoted), then they are saying that an outlet in the Scottish media called him those exact words. My question is where are those particular words appearing in the Scottish media?

Because if they are not, then LSN are not just incorrect in their implication of a government action (using 'fined' when it was not a fine), but also in the way that their chosen 'free speech martyr' has been treated.

I do think the people getting their feelings hurt too easily because someone says they could be a bad parent need to not be so offended.

It was not potentially being a 'bad parent'. It was actually being a 'danger to children' with the strong implication of paedophilia. I think it's pretty clear that there is a difference, and the actual words being used are (again) key

That being said, it is a different story to call an employer and report that a person is a bad parent because of sexual orientation.

And a step worse to say they are a 'danger to children' with the strong implication of paedophilia.

Which is why, dear bbauska, he was sued for libel after using twitter to do just that. I take it, then, that you are not joining in the defence of this man's abusing his rights to free expression?

The fact that you ask for direct quotes, and then suggest that a term "bad parent" IMPLIES (not directly quotes, mind you!) pedophilia subdues your position...

For all your ability to link to a thesaurus, your ability to read seems to be lacking.

Mr Shuttleton specifically used the words "danger to children" in his tweets. Those tweets also involved linking to paedophilia using different terms (not 'bad parent'). For example, just before his tweet to the complainant that she sued over, he issued this:

We Scots must stand up for our children as all these people want is access to children. They do not want "equal" marriage whatsoever- it's

Link

In other tweets he used the hashtag #childabuse.

That is not just suggesting that someone might be a 'bad parent'

The basis of a libel case is not vague synonyms or things he may have said, but what he actually wrote and the context of it. That is why I am dealing in quotes.

I have read the originals and linked to his twitter feed so you can find them. I have read the reports, including the erroneous one by LifeSiteNews, and all are linked on this thread. I don't know where you got bad parent from, but it was not from me, or from them.

I am basing what I am saying on what he did actually write. If you want to argue based on stuff he did not actually write, and ignoring what he did write, then I'll have to leave you to it.

Just because he's a Christian (or at least says he is) and opposes gay marriage, does not mean you have to make common cause with him over his libel, or try to rationalise it away using dishonesty (or just plain lack of English comprehension).

And so, when the site supporting him alleges that specific words are used against him, I was interested to know if that was true or not. I think it is a lie, as I can't find those words used against him when searching the internet using his name. Which undermines the case that he is being treated differently.

Now, I want to draw a line under this digression. Can we return to the actual point:

Do you think it was right or wrong that he was sued for saying that someone was a "danger to children" and including her employer as recipient of such tweets?

No

bbauska wrote:No

Sheesh! The question was not a yes/no question. Does your answer mean you think he should not have been sued?

Three!

GMTom wrote:Three!

As in 'Stooges'? Because it feels like trying to have a reasoned conversation with them on this subject with you two.

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:No

Sheesh! The question was not a yes/no question. Does your answer mean you think he should not have been sued?

Do you think it was right or wrong that he was sued for saying that someone was a "danger to children" and including her employer as recipient of such tweets?

He may be sued. It is well within the legal structure of your nation to allow it. Would I have sued, no, but I am not nearly as litigious as most.