As far as I can tell, sarkozy doesn't have a study proving his point (or proving your straw-man version of his point) and you don't have a study proving yours.
Now, why is it that you are entitled to an opinion and he is not?
As far as I can tell, the person bringing up "countless psychological studies" has a responsibility to provide their own evidence.
I have no problem with other people having opinions. I likewise have no problem with publicly disapproving of opinions which I think are socially harmful.
I don't have any illusions about changing a bigot's mind, but I can hope that others will see my disapproval and think that bigotry is just that much less cool.
I'm intrigued by your willingness to use and to admit to using the metric "socially harmful" (as opposed to, say, "correct") to judge an opinion.
For example, what would you do if your own opinion (that is, your honest best assessment of what the truth actually was) was an opinion you judged to be socially harmful? Would you continue to hold the opinion, but try to avoid mentioning it? Would you publicly lie about your opinion? Would you express the opinion and expect public disapproval? Would you intentionally try to change your own opinion somehow?
Ooh, that's a fascinating question. I'm not completely sure how to respond, since I think the two are tied together— I use a more or less evidence-based definition of harm.
I mean, looking at it logically, thinking that all women want to have children wouldn't be prejudiced if all women actually did want to have children. Would it still be wrong to say so? I can't see how.
I guess if my assessment of the facts were greatly opposed to my values it'd probably imply some more significant cognitive dissonance.
Why are you calling me a bigot? Is it possible you could find a less offensive way of engaging in this discussion? I would appreciate it. I also disagree with you, after all, but have not resorted to calling you names.
I apologize— I didn't mean to call you a bigot personally, so although I do feel that sex prejudice is a very important and undervalued issue in our culture, I'll admit it was a poor choice of words.
I was merely trying to elucidate the broader point that shaming can be appropriate in the case of "differences of opinion"— after all, bigotry is just the extremity of the belief that one's personal prejudice is well-grounded in fact.
Of course I appreciate that you're willing to discuss this civilly, and I hope you'll forgive the hyperbole.
Now, why is it that you are entitled to an opinion and he is not?