Just the opposite. Your bigotry is a delusion that makes you feel comfortable (it's why terrorists use it as a weapon against you). You think it gives you an easy calculation in your life, but it actually creates a predictable gap that can be easily exploited.
It's immoral because you're staunchly unwilling to see humanity in other people because you've been told that your ideology has accounted for that. If it were ever done to you, you'd have an epileptic fit: (#YesAllMen). You know it's wrong, but you want to use something against the bad person, and therefore you'll keep doing wrong things and assuming that everything will come up fine (it never does).
You actually have to do the right thing, all the time, to everyone.
Exceptions prove the rule by being exceptional. You're looking at regularly occurring contradictions and then choosing to interpret them as "exceptions".
You don't get to say that the exceptions prove the rule when the exception isn't exceptional, and is an utter rebuke of the rule and it's foundational premises. That's called: "being wrong". When you still reject it after that, it's called "motivated reasoning".
Just the opposite. Your bigotry is a delusion that makes you feel comfortable (it's why terrorists use it as a weapon against you). You think it gives you an easy calculation in your life, but it actually creates a predictable gap that can be easily exploited.
It's immoral because you're staunchly unwilling to see humanity in other people because you've been told that your ideology has accounted for that. If it were ever done to you, you'd have an epileptic fit: (#YesAllMen). You know it's wrong, but you want to use something against the bad person, and therefore you'll keep doing wrong things and assuming that everything will come up fine (it never does).
You actually have to do the right thing, all the time, to everyone.
Exceptions prove the rule you dolt.
Exceptions prove the rule by being exceptional. You're looking at regularly occurring contradictions and then choosing to interpret them as "exceptions".
You don't get to say that the exceptions prove the rule when the exception isn't exceptional, and is an utter rebuke of the rule and it's foundational premises. That's called: "being wrong". When you still reject it after that, it's called "motivated reasoning".