The other half is that they (gay) are indulging in hypocrisy because they tell people not to judge or discriminate against them. Yet they;re doing it to Chick-Fil-A. The fundamental reason behind it is just and righteous in my own opinion, but it is still hypocrisy. They tell people not to do one thing, but then they themselves do it, just because circumstances prove poor to them,

This is my last attempt. If it doesn't get through I'll just throw my hands up and let you think what you want.

The side against Chick-Fil-A's action of supporting anti-gay groups is not being hypocritical. The reason is because they are saying that Chick-Fil-A is wrong to discriminate (Definition 1, in a bigoted way) against the rights of homosexuals. In protest of this, they decide to not support Chick-Fil-A's business while they hold those views (Definition 2 of discrimination) and asked others who agreed to do the same.

It is not hypocrisy because:

The reasons for each 'discriminating' against each other are different, and thus it is not the 'same' discrimination. One is discriminating in a bigoted way, the other is discriminating as the word 'discriminate' means to single out. Since it is different 'types' it is not hypocrisy because those against Chick-Fil-A's actions are not saying Chick-Fil-A can't do one thing and then do it themselves, because they are not doing the same thing.

If you still don't understand that's hypocrisy, well, I can't explain this any clearer.

Nobody ever talks about discrimination with the definition "anything there is any preferential treatment of anyone for better or worse (for any reason)".

If you plan to just argue as a method of improvement you should at least listen to the other side. nichodemus has already noted how useless such a definition is.
However is you want to argue pedantically. the origin of the word in American English (which we are using here) was intended to mean prejudicial treatment based solely on race and was later expanded to other social categories. Yes the word discriminate is derived from a word meaning "to separate, to distinguish, to make a distinction" but this doesn't mean that discriminate was intended or is used in such a way.

On to you're accusation of hypocrite. in what way are they putting on false appearances? Or in your methodology being a "stage actor, pretender, dissembler". If the denouncement of Chick-Fil-A is justified as you seem to agree with, then doing so is not a false appearance.

I concede the point that they aren't being hypocrites.

you should at least listen to the other side. nichodemus has already noted how useless such a definition is.

I have and always will listen to the other side, I take into account, mull it over, and proceed from there. You may not think so, but I do. If it looks like I don't it's because I think what the person has said is wrong or flawed.

Yes the word discriminate is derived from a word meaning "to separate, to distinguish, to make a distinction"

It is also the definition of discriminate, and this whole time I've been saying that by this definition the gays and boy-cotters are discriminating.

but this doesn't mean that discriminate was intended or is used in such a way.

Can you prove that when the word discriminate was defined it was never meant to be used as defined? Or are you just going to say it wasn't intended to be with no proof?

I have and always will listen to the other side, I take into account, mull it over, and proceed from there. You may not think so, but I do. If it looks like I don't it's because I think what the person has said is wrong or flawed.

How is it useful?

It is also the definition of discriminate, and this whole time I've been saying that by this definition the gays and boy-cotters are discriminating.

And have been completely ignoring that it applies to unmerited prejudicial treatment.

This is like arguing that lesbian just means being from the Island of Lesbos.

Can you prove that when the word discriminate was defined it was never meant to be used as defined? Or are you just going to say it wasn't intended to be with no proof?

The development of a word is more organic then it was just one day defined. So because that's not how words work. I can point to the proof that we use that word in such a way now and there is a clear history of it's use in such a way.

Well if you're doing to stick to your definition of discrimination, which is perfectly fine for a parlour discussion, but doesn't stand up to a test when we discuss it as a legal sense which is the case now then.....good luck living in a bubble.

Though technically you can't stick to a definition because to stick means to bind physically to something. Nor is there a sixth sense called legal. Or sentences don't have legs to stand either. Nor do you actually live in a giant ball with a thin layer of rainbow soap.

But who cares right? We define what we want don't we?

How is it useful?

You're asking how it is useful to think about what someone said and then disregard it if it is silly or wrong? You don't think that people should listen to the other side?

And have been completely ignoring that it applies to unmerited prejudicial treatment.

Please be wise, unless the definition says that it doesn't.

This is like arguing that lesbian just means being from the Island of Lesbos.

This is nothing like that.

@nicho

I am not sticking to my definition of discrimination, I am stating that by a definition from a dictionary the homosexuals are discriminating. From what I can tell that isn't living in a bubble and secondly you can't go by the legal definition or think of the word "discriminate" in a legal sense if it isn't a legal matter. If it were a legal matter I would tend to agree with you,

If anyone is being closed minded it is people like you and mage and everyone else arguing about me with the definition of discriminate. I quoted it from a dictionary, that definition says "to treat preferentially" and you mostly tend to argue and disagree with me or patronize me with idiotic comments like :"good luck living in a bubble" or "but who cares right? We define what we want don't we".

Pardon my English, but b___ch please you're very condescending and rude right now as well as sarcastic and are being single minded. I agreed that by different definitions people like the gays are and aren't discriminating, I agreed that the gays weren't really being hypocrites (although they are arguably being hypocrites) and I'm the one living in a bubble? I live in a bubble and you have yet to say "I agree by the definition of the word discriminate, the gays and Chick-Fil-A are both discriminating".

My Lord you guys are acting like kids, I show you a definition of discriminate in a non-legal sense of a non-legal issue and you still have the audacity to disagree with me.and argue and patronize over everything I've said.

For the last time, this is a non-legal issue, therefore you do not use legal definitions to describe words.

You're asking how it is useful to think about what someone said and then disregard it if it is silly or wrong? You don't think that people should listen to the other side?

No I'm asking how your definition is of any use.

This is nothing like that..

Yeah it is. You're taking one etymological definition and applying it to a situation where it doesn't belong. In the context and way you're trying to use it I almost want to call it a form of word salad.

The person who sticks initially to his definition and disparages others whilst doing a volte face by accepting the legal definition is now calling us narrow minded?

Since when did having to consider very single minute definition constitute being open minded? This is a clear cut case of discrimination in the legal sense and we have stated so. It doesn't make us condescending to support it and to point out that yours is not applicable to this issuesimplt because IT IS a legal issue which is why such a big fuss was made out of it and the subsequent Law suits.

Given that there were law suits it IS a legal matter. Yes we do have the audacity to root out incorrectly applied definitions. If that is audacity at all.

"you suck", said the little boy to the man who shoved him to the wall.

meanwhile, a stranger came up to him and said: "your being a hyporctite. your sucking a candy and by A definition in A dictionary you suck too".

hmmm.... sounds familiar

No I'm asking how your definition is of any use

I suppose it isn't of any use, just thought I'd share my opinion of what these boycotters are. Last time I checked people were allowed to share statements and opinions on this website ;)

Yeah it is. You're taking one etymological definition and applying it to a situation where it doesn't belong. In the context and way you're trying to use it I almost want to call it a form of word salad.

The difference between this and lesbians coming from lesbian island is that the context I'm using discriminant is correct, I'm not saying this definition in a legal sense. The context is not legal, thus the legal definition means nothing, and the etymological definition means the most. What I was saying had nothing to do with how people were using the word discriminate I specifically said the context and definition of the way I used discriminate, thus the way I used discriminate does indeed belong.

Meanwhile the etymological definition of lesbians in not woman coming from an island called lesbo. Thus what I'm saying and what you're saying is nothing alike.

The person who sticks initially to his definition and disparages others whilst doing a volte face by accepting the legal definition is now calling us narrow minded?

1. I Have no idea what volte face means.
2. I concede to points when I believe I am being wrong.
3. I admit to being wrong when I'm wrong (I've done this before on site and this thread).
4. I haven't really disparaged what you have said, I don't know how you can say that when I agree that the homosexuals aren't really indulging in hypocrisy and that I agreed with you that if the context I was using discriminate would be related to a legal issue I'd be wrong, but the context I'm using it is not legal.
5. The reason I'm arguing right now is because you're saying I'm wrong and single minded about the definition of discriminate in the situation I'm using it when I am most certainly not.

Since when did having to consider very single minute definition constitute being open minded?

Very single minute definition constitute? That is absolutely not what I am doing/being, please elaborate to how you can think that.

This is a clear cut case of discrimination in the legal sense and we have stated so.

And I have agreed that if the context of our argument was a legal one in a legal sense you'd be right, but the context is not one of that nature.

P.S. The context I used the word (which I was clear about) is that going by a etymological definition of the word, boycotters and the gays are discriminating.