|
|
First official GOP President announcement
VIP
サーバ: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2015-03-29 00:58:55
DISCRIMINATION IN AND OF ITSELF IS NOT A BAD THING.
I'd LOVE to see you elaborate on this beyond clothes selection...
Quote: The reason I am against gay marriage(being called Marriage) is because it destroys the ORIGINAL(maybe not the current day) purpose of marriage. It was a religious unity to protect procreation. Now call it something else and i could care less.
Marriage has basically always been a contract recognized by the state. Unions are actually the arrangements you're referring to. So, let the gays get married, you can have your traditional union.
Let them get married and call it a Union, i will not oppose that in any way.
Expand on discrimination beyond clothing? easy. Like i said discrimination is merely making choices based on your value system(whatever that happens to be). Some is bad, but most is unnoticed and a good thing.
People find out that Morgan freeman dates(is married?) to his step daughter.. for that reason they decide they dont like him.. thats discrimination. Incest is seen as taboo and therefore most people will make decisions about them, descrimination. The fact that you will vote for a certain politicians based on views they have or do not have.. again discrimination. Choosing which church to attend.. discrimination...
You seem to have an odd definition of discrimination.
Quote: Discrimination is action that denies social participation or human rights to categories of people based on prejudice. This includes treatment of an individual or group based on their actual or perceived membership in a certain group or social category, "in a way that is worse than the way people are usually treated".
The key word in there is prejudice, or to pre-judge. All your examples are invalid because they're instances post judging people.
the ability to understand that one thing is different from another thing
source Merriam Websters dictionary
Ok, first LOL. Second, we're talking about a group of people, and you grab the definition that applies to objects of varying quality. If everything else you said wasn't incredibly disrespectful, that is beyond comprehension.
 Bismarck.Ihina
サーバ: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3187
By Bismarck.Ihina 2015-03-29 00:59:08
the ability to understand that one thing is different from another thing
source Merriam Websters dictionary
Does the fact that you have to go to the third definition to cherry pick a definition that fits your narrative ever give you pause?
Because the fact that you guys insist the first definition is the only definition is not cherry picking as well?
It's not 'my definition' vs 'your definition'.
The definition of discrimination is pretty well understood. I think it's unfortunate that we can't even agree on what simple words mean.
This dash to make everything seem equal is something that Rav would be into.
By Enuyasha 2015-03-29 01:00:33
Nothing about religious freedom makes the a group subhuman. Noone wants to defend religious freedom.. but you do not realize apparently that the more this 'group' is forced into society the more INFRINGEMENT is placed on religious freedom. There freedom is our infringement. At what point are we allowed to actually speak up?
Small business should have rights to decide 'we have the right to refuse service to anyone'. Now you get bigger there IS AND SHOULD be protections... Corporations, government agencies, the military should NOT be allowed to refuse service to them.. because they are not 'family owned' and therefore have a broader scope to look at.
When every other significant minority group is expressly protected from discrimination and they are expressly subject to it, then yes, you are treating them as subhuman.
As for the rights of small businesses, they have the right to refuse service to anyone, they just can't discriminate on the basis of sex, race, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, etc. The issue is that they want affirmation to be able to post signs and tell people they won't serve them because they're gay. The only difference is that LGBT are about 50 years behind blacks and 100 years behind women in civil rights.
I don't buy your slippery slope, it's always been a fallacy in terms of civil liberties.
Then let's hope this thread can just die... hell we are not even talking about Ted Cruz anymore.
Viscous.. obviously you are not getting what I am saying
DISCRIMINATION IN AND OF ITSELF IS NOT A BAD THING.
(did you choose what shirt, pants or anything else you wanted to wear today over something else? thats discrimination. Discriminating is merely making choices based on whatever your value system happens to be)
The reason I am against gay marriage(being called Marriage) is because it destroys the ORIGINAL(maybe not the current day) purpose of marriage. It was a religious unity to protect procreation. Now call it something else and i could care less. Technically, the original social reason for marriage in society has a socio-econimic base. Largely, in European cultures marriage has the primary function of uniting two or more houses financially and to grant one liege lord fealty to another by law (Providing both houses with resources and land from each others estate). Modern marriage isnt so different, no matter what the church says it did not create the system of Marriage, it only abused it by adding a theological function. You cant claim marriage by law as a process of government is in any way related to religion exclusively, both the state and its municipalities have to recognize a legal contract between two consenting adults whether they are recognized by a church or not. Saying otherwise, is a systemic disconnect. Specifically, when marriages here dont give much at all other than certain spousal benefits which any other system in law at this moment doesnt recognize or allow.
Also, that argument for discrimination is VERY shallow in reasoning. I may have chosen another set of clothing today than another, but i did not subjugate the other chosen ensemble just because i didnt want to wear it that day. That is the stupidity thats going on right now. Just because you dont like gay people, means they cant have the same things heterosexuals have the same rights to because reasons and apparently as far as most people are concerned (because it doesnt affect them) its perfectly okay. Its Institutionalized Discrimination, and it shouldnt be happening.
I can't talk to you about your first paragraph, but not the second...
In regards to the first... I see where you are coming from.. And yah.. I see you point 'one king marries his princess to another kings prince for purposes of uniting the kingdomes.." hmm
in regards to the second... People willingly look at the convenient first definition.. but the third definition is ignored.. Specially when they ignore it because it isnt relevant in this discussion. Preferential discrimination is different from Prejudicial discrimination. Specifically, when preferential discrimination is never used in legal matters on any scale, while prejudicial discrimination entirely has basis in every conflict of sociological importance that comes up.
First it was the blacks, now its the gays. Same ***, different day.
By Zackan 2015-03-29 01:01:58
DISCRIMINATION IN AND OF ITSELF IS NOT A BAD THING.
I'd LOVE to see you elaborate on this beyond clothes selection...
Quote: The reason I am against gay marriage(being called Marriage) is because it destroys the ORIGINAL(maybe not the current day) purpose of marriage. It was a religious unity to protect procreation. Now call it something else and i could care less.
Marriage has basically always been a contract recognized by the state. Unions are actually the arrangements you're referring to. So, let the gays get married, you can have your traditional union.
Let them get married and call it a Union, i will not oppose that in any way.
Expand on discrimination beyond clothing? easy. Like i said discrimination is merely making choices based on your value system(whatever that happens to be). Some is bad, but most is unnoticed and a good thing.
People find out that Morgan freeman dates(is married?) to his step daughter.. for that reason they decide they dont like him.. thats discrimination. Incest is seen as taboo and therefore most people will make decisions about them, descrimination. The fact that you will vote for a certain politicians based on views they have or do not have.. again discrimination. Choosing which church to attend.. discrimination...
You seem to have an odd definition of discrimination.
Quote: Discrimination is action that denies social participation or human rights to categories of people based on prejudice. This includes treatment of an individual or group based on their actual or perceived membership in a certain group or social category, "in a way that is worse than the way people are usually treated".
The key word in there is prejudice, or to pre-judge. All your examples are invalid because they're instances post judging people.
the ability to understand that one thing is different from another thing
source Merriam Websters dictionary
Ok, first LOL. Second, we're talking about a group of people, and you grab the definition that applies to objects of varying quality. If everything else you said wasn't incredibly disrespectful, that is beyond comprehension.
Why can we not agree that this entire debate is about 1 group going to another group, both wanting there beliefs respected. And the consumer decides to make an example instead of just going to the next place...
By Enuyasha 2015-03-29 01:06:44
Why cant we all just live in India where your social mobility and standing is determined by birth instead of your ability to force social mobility ('____________________'
Caste system > Everything
By Zackan 2015-03-29 01:07:06
Nothing about religious freedom makes the a group subhuman. Noone wants to defend religious freedom.. but you do not realize apparently that the more this 'group' is forced into society the more INFRINGEMENT is placed on religious freedom. There freedom is our infringement. At what point are we allowed to actually speak up?
Small business should have rights to decide 'we have the right to refuse service to anyone'. Now you get bigger there IS AND SHOULD be protections... Corporations, government agencies, the military should NOT be allowed to refuse service to them.. because they are not 'family owned' and therefore have a broader scope to look at.
When every other significant minority group is expressly protected from discrimination and they are expressly subject to it, then yes, you are treating them as subhuman.
As for the rights of small businesses, they have the right to refuse service to anyone, they just can't discriminate on the basis of sex, race, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, etc. The issue is that they want affirmation to be able to post signs and tell people they won't serve them because they're gay. The only difference is that LGBT are about 50 years behind blacks and 100 years behind women in civil rights.
I don't buy your slippery slope, it's always been a fallacy in terms of civil liberties.
Then let's hope this thread can just die... hell we are not even talking about Ted Cruz anymore.
Viscous.. obviously you are not getting what I am saying
DISCRIMINATION IN AND OF ITSELF IS NOT A BAD THING.
(did you choose what shirt, pants or anything else you wanted to wear today over something else? thats discrimination. Discriminating is merely making choices based on whatever your value system happens to be)
The reason I am against gay marriage(being called Marriage) is because it destroys the ORIGINAL(maybe not the current day) purpose of marriage. It was a religious unity to protect procreation. Now call it something else and i could care less. Technically, the original social reason for marriage in society has a socio-econimic base. Largely, in European cultures marriage has the primary function of uniting two or more houses financially and to grant one liege lord fealty to another by law (Providing both houses with resources and land from each others estate). Modern marriage isnt so different, no matter what the church says it did not create the system of Marriage, it only abused it by adding a theological function. You cant claim marriage by law as a process of government is in any way related to religion exclusively, both the state and its municipalities have to recognize a legal contract between two consenting adults whether they are recognized by a church or not. Saying otherwise, is a systemic disconnect. Specifically, when marriages here dont give much at all other than certain spousal benefits which any other system in law at this moment doesnt recognize or allow.
Also, that argument for discrimination is VERY shallow in reasoning. I may have chosen another set of clothing today than another, but i did not subjugate the other chosen ensemble just because i didnt want to wear it that day. That is the stupidity thats going on right now. Just because you dont like gay people, means they cant have the same things heterosexuals have the same rights to because reasons and apparently as far as most people are concerned (because it doesnt affect them) its perfectly okay. Its Institutionalized Discrimination, and it shouldnt be happening.
I can't talk to you about your first paragraph, but not the second...
In regards to the first... I see where you are coming from.. And yah.. I see you point 'one king marries his princess to another kings prince for purposes of uniting the kingdomes.." hmm
in regards to the second... People willingly look at the convenient first definition.. but the third definition is ignored.. Specially when they ignore it because it isnt relevant in this discussion. Preferential discrimination is different from Prejudicial discrimination. Specifically, when preferential discrimination is never used in legal matters on any scale, while prejudicial discrimination entirely has basis in every conflict of sociological importance that comes up.
First it was the blacks, now its the gays. Same ***, different day.
Enuyasha I just want to say again, you seem to be the only one able to talk to me effectively, I appreciate it.
What the others are missing is I said Discrimination 'in and of itself' is not a bad thing. The word, the act itself by being discrimination is not bad. It is like the whole 'guns don't kill people, people kill people' it is like that.
Anyway. And aI agree, first it was blacks, not its the gays, and to add to that, tomorrow it will be someone else.
So again it was relevant because the phrase i said was meant to be taken separately. I guess I did a bad job of pointing that out, so my bad.
By Zackan 2015-03-29 01:08:08
Why cant we all just live in India where your social mobility and standing is determined by birth instead of your ability to force social mobility ('____________________'
Caste system > Everything
Reincarnation ftw!
[+]
Bahamut.Omael
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 400
By Bahamut.Omael 2015-03-29 01:09:39
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."
By Zackan 2015-03-29 01:11:50
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."
Definition of Run.
That is the thing about English.. words do have many meanings.
Bismarck.Ihina
サーバ: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3187
By Bismarck.Ihina 2015-03-29 01:12:51
That's really no excuse for making up new meanings to words.
By Zackan 2015-03-29 01:15:07
That's really no excuse for making up new meanings to words. noone made up anything. The definition I provided is just as relevant as the one you guys provided. The difference is I was talking about the meaning of it in general, you guys kept it in reference to people.
Bismarck.Ihina
サーバ: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3187
By Bismarck.Ihina 2015-03-29 01:18:53
Well call me crazy but you've also made references to people while you were explaining what discrimination is to you.
People find out that Morgan freeman dates(is married?) to his step daughter.. for that reason they decide they dont like him.. thats discrimination. Incest is seen as taboo and therefore most people will make decisions about them, descrimination. The fact that you will vote for a certain politicians based on views they have or do not have.. again discrimination. Choosing which church to attend.. discrimination...
Just...google around and read up on what discrimination means. You simply aren't allowed to make up new definitions for words if you want to actually converse with people.
Bahamut.Omael
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 400
By Bahamut.Omael 2015-03-29 01:19:29
noone made up anything. The definition I provided is just as relevant as the one you guys provided. The difference is I was talking about the meaning of it in general, you guys kept it in reference to people.
You realize that difference is the problem here, right? When the discussion turns to gay marriage and you use the general definition of discrimination, it's going to offend a few folks.
By Zackan 2015-03-29 01:20:39
Well call me crazy but you've also made references to people while you were explaining what discrimination is to you.
People find out that Morgan freeman dates(is married?) to his step daughter.. for that reason they decide they dont like him.. thats discrimination. Incest is seen as taboo and therefore most people will make decisions about them, descrimination. The fact that you will vote for a certain politicians based on views they have or do not have.. again discrimination. Choosing which church to attend.. discrimination...
Just...google around and read up on what discrimination means. You simply aren't allowed to make up new definitions for words if you want to actually converse with people.
It is not a new defintion!!!! It merely did not fit into the context of the way the conversation was going, i admit that.. my bad....
But is is a real and valid definition.... just didn't fit in context.. my bad.
Bahamut.Omael
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 400
By Bahamut.Omael 2015-03-29 01:21:25
Well call me crazy but you've also made references to people while you were explaining what discrimination is to you.
People find out that Morgan freeman dates(is married?) to his step daughter.. for that reason they decide they dont like him.. thats discrimination. Incest is seen as taboo and therefore most people will make decisions about them, descrimination. The fact that you will vote for a certain politicians based on views they have or do not have.. again discrimination. Choosing which church to attend.. discrimination...
Just...google around and read up on what discrimination means. You simply aren't allowed to make up new definitions for words if you want to actually converse with people.
It is not a new defintion!!!! It merely did not fit into the context of the way the conversation was going, i admit that.. my bad....
But is is a real and valid definition.... just didn't fit in context.. my bad.
All is forgiven. Your arranged gay marriage partner should be shipped to you within the next 7-10 business days.
[+]
By Zackan 2015-03-29 01:22:36
noone made up anything. The definition I provided is just as relevant as the one you guys provided. The difference is I was talking about the meaning of it in general, you guys kept it in reference to people.
You realize that difference is the problem here, right? When the discussion turns to gay marriage and you use the general definition of discrimination, it's going to offend a few folks.
There at least we are on the same page. And fine... but it goes back to that gay couple had the right to 'discriminate' against choosing to use that shop just as much as (i believe) that shop had the right to 'discriminate' the 'right to refuse service to anyone'
Bismarck.Ihina
サーバ: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3187
By Bismarck.Ihina 2015-03-29 01:29:39
Well that's a bit puzzling. So after going through all that, trying to convince people that you're not referring to discrimination in the context to people, you flat out say that the discrimination you're referring to really is in the context of people.
By Zackan 2015-03-29 01:33:43
Well that's a bit puzzling. So after going through all that, trying to convince people that you're not referring to discrimination in the context to people, you flat out say that the discrimination you're referring to really is in the context of people.
I am saying a Vendor had the right to choose not to service a Customer, just as much as the Customer could have chose to go to a different vendor.
Bismarck.Ihina
サーバ: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3187
By Bismarck.Ihina 2015-03-29 01:35:51
Well around here, vendors and customers are both people.
By Zackan 2015-03-29 01:36:57
Well around here, vendors and customers are both people.
yah. but it is also entirely possible to just see them as the cogs in a machine.
Bismarck.Ihina
サーバ: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3187
By Bismarck.Ihina 2015-03-29 01:39:57
Well around here, vendors and customers are both people.
yah. but it is also entirely possible to just see them as the cogs in a machine.
Possible, but you probably shouldn't. Human beings should be treated like human beings.
But we can agree to disagree.
[+]
Bahamut.Ravael
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 13639
By Bahamut.Ravael 2015-03-29 02:39:07
This dash to make everything seem equal is something that Rav would be into.
I guess you missed the conversation where that was the exact argument that your buddies were using against me. Take the blinders off and keep your pathetic, passive-aggressive insults to yourself.
Bismarck.Ihina
サーバ: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3187
By Bismarck.Ihina 2015-03-29 04:41:12
I did miss it, actually. I don't keep track of these topics as much as some people.
And nothing I said was an insult. It's just in your nature to take offense to everything personally. There's nothing false about stating your tendency to rush to the conclusion that all sides are the same and call it a wash.
By fonewear 2015-03-29 10:11:36
Did we #boycottindiana yet ?
By Bloodrose 2015-03-29 10:38:17
This thread needs to be washed with high fluoride concentrated bleach.
[+]
By fonewear 2015-03-29 11:00:45
I have no idea what this thread is about but I'm sure it is amazing !
By Zackan 2015-03-29 11:04:20
Did we #boycottindiana yet ?
Apparantly Some corporation did. And the NCAA wants to play politics and plans on following suit i guess, and supposedly the NFL wants play politics as well and plans on doing the same?
By fonewear 2015-03-29 11:05:28
I think Obama should appoint a Indiana czar ! Let's solve this problem.
By Zackan 2015-03-29 11:09:43
I think Obama should appoint a Indiana czar ! Let's solve this problem. executive order?
[+]
By fonewear 2015-03-29 11:10:58
Of course who needs Congress to get anything done !
|
|
