Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by Lucky 9 years, 8 months ago
    I have a few problems with Map's arguments-
    Map, you want to find the truth. This is stated with some belligerency, do so, who is stopping you?
    Post up when it is found.
    There are founders of philosophies, and there are movements. For example: Darwin and evolution, Marx and communism, Mohammed and Islam, Rand and Objectivism. Maybe bad stuff happens as a result of the movement, one view says is will turn out ok, or will later be shown to be correct, or the followers have distorted the words of the founder. With a discrepancy between the words of the founder and actions of the movement it can be asked- who is right? How to form an opinion? Try "By their fruits shall you know them".
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by 9 years, 8 months ago
      If we're going to use the axiom "By their fruits you shall know them" as our barometer for the validity of an idea, then can we blame Objectivism for the fact that Eddie Lampert, the CEO of Sears, nearly drove Sears to bankruptcy by trying to implement Objectivist philosophy into the corporate structure of his company?

      http://www.salon.com/2013/07/18/ayn_rand...

      And what about Alan Greenspans's mismanagement of the Federal Reserve, and his dogmatic belief that free markets would always self-correct, despite all evidence to the contrary?

      http://www.fool.com/investing/general/20...
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Lucky 9 years, 8 months ago
        I have read a little about Sears, I understood the collapse to be from the application of pop-psychology and performance measures. Any explanation from Salon carries little weight. The chap was a banker with no demonstrated skill in management. He got there not from success in the field but from money.
        A good example of it being better to judge by experience rather than by claimed capability.

        I am not aware that there is an economic theory in which free markets automatically and quickly self-correct. It is clear that government intervention is a cause of collapse and does not assist recovery whatever the cause. Perhaps institutions like the Fed from their very nature cannot be managed well and it would be better not to have them. Economic libertarianism is not convincing to me. What I am convinced of is that implementing the ideas of Marx and Keynes lead to disaster.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 9 years, 8 months ago
    The absolute ignorance in this posting is astounding. Attend Tea Party meetings and rallies and see for yourself. Be as flaming as you wish but STOP SHOVING IT IN MY FACE. That is the sentiment I've repeatedly seen and agree with. Men and Women have rights this is universally supported by everyone I've ever met. A persons SEXUAL PREFERENCES has no business attaining rights. unless of course gays aren't either gender
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • -1
      Posted by CircuitGuy 9 years, 8 months ago
      The article says Tea Party rallies are filled with people who don't support equal rights. You say they're wrong. Maybe the media just find a few rare bigots. Then you say you're not for equal rights. Are you the rare exception or is the article correct on this point?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 9 years, 8 months ago
        I believe PEOPLE have rights, men and women, straight or homosexual. Literally everyone I know from the Tea Party (hundreds across the country) support and would die defending the rights of men and women. Advancing any rights based on anything other than their being male or female is sheer stupidity and open to manipulation, exploitation and exaggeration.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by Hiraghm 9 years, 8 months ago
          Exactly. It's kind of like the issue of what "rights" are. I saw a local person at a pro-illegal alien rally today asserting that food, clothing and shelter were human "rights". No, they are common human needs. Rights can't place a pro-active obligation on others.

          Likewise, "rights" are an individual matter. Constantly, especially on the left, the issue of "group rights" keeps coming up. As if one's rights were a matter of what categories one could be pigeon-holed into by others (or even by oneself). The very notion of group-based rights is antithetical to the idea of individuality.

          Today, Stacey Dash (sigh) got a nasty twitter message (I guess he deleted it because I can't find it now) basically telling her to stop retweeting certain people because she's black and should act like it. Refusing to accept her as an individual, but only as a member of a pre-conceived "group".

          That's what this bs is all about. Not simply lumping people into groups, but people *wanting* to be lumped into groups for the perceived power it gains them.

          At the 20th Century factory, hard work and creativity didn't gain you anything; because your pay wasn't based on ability but on need. Likewise, political capital isn't made today based upon merit, but upon victimhood. Everyone at the 20th century had to declare their hardships, because that's what got them the alms. In the real world of American society, victimhood gets people the alms.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by 9 years, 8 months ago
            The events at the 20th Century Motor Factory were fictional, and as such are an inadequate example to turn to when discussing political theory as it applies to the real world. Don't get me wrong, theoretical models like that are useful to a point, but they should not be used as a substitute for actual history.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • -5
          Posted by 9 years, 8 months ago
          You obviously have never talked at length with anyone in the LGBT community. When a group is being specifically targeted for persecution, then they need to be specifically targeted for protection, regardless of what attribute the persecution is based on.

          By the way, thanks for proving me right.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by khalling 9 years, 8 months ago
            I think the more we draw attention to differences between groups, the more the issue. Those who identify with the LGBT community (lots of gays and gays who are in partnerships don 't btw) make things awfully confrontational over perceived slights. I am not saying that bad people aren 't out there targeting people based on race, sexuality etc. But for the most part the community has way overplayed its hand leaving large numbers of people who are usually live and let live defensive and angry. I think you engage that way. Then when you get that reaction you point to it and say see? Hate. Until you 've made it clear to us you 've attended some tea party rallies and engaged in the agenda set forth in the rally I would say your opinion is highly prejudiced falsely. A candidate can claim they associate with any group. Many rinos during election time say they support the tea party. Many democrats avoid the word socialist in favor of progressive even though socialist ideas direct their policy making. We say we are a capitalist society when we actually are a bastardized version of it which has really bad consequences when we incorpotate socialist laws and regs and cronyism. So Cuba's a marxist country with strict gun control. Guns were not a pillar of the philosophy but every country that works at communism figures out pretty quickly they don 't want their citizens armed. Tryanny is about division indtead of production and individualism. An individual freely associates. Group thinkers tyrannize by forcing associations and stealing from certain groups to give to others. Sometimes Christians put the fish symbol on their advertising encouraging business relationships based on being part of that group opposed to building a reputation on good products and services. After all if your reputation is secure why the need to shout you 're a Christian to your customers? So what? Asian communities tend to do business with other asians first. This is especially true in real estate yet no one screams racism. Refusing or shutting down opportunities based on illogical criteria hurts that individual more than an individual offering a good opportunity. Someone else will jump in and take it. There were probably 50 bakers in CO who would have solicited the couple who sued. Seems to me the couple shut down opportunities for themselves and on a vendetta forced someone to do something against their will. I like the blog layout btw
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Lucky 9 years, 8 months ago
            'When a group is being specifically targeted for persecution, then they need to be specifically targeted for protection, regardless of what attribute the persecution is based on.'

            This is an interesting comment and should not have been voted down.
            However, I disagree with it on two grounds:

            1. I suggest that the correct word here is not persecution but discrimination. Once this is illegal an Italian restaurant cannot advertise for Italian staff. It leads to absurdity and bullying. Should it be ok or should it be illegal to employ anyone but Italians? The quick answer is that there is already a tax (a fine) on employers who do that- it is the penalty they pay for not employing the best person. The market does that better than government. Now, you will recall some time ago on here there was report of a study on discrimination in employment - it exists, the biggest offenders were government and regulated industry. There, employment criteria give preference to being likeable, fitting in, members of the club, and so on. Actual performance is less important than a pleasant environment with like minded fellows. There is no market mechanism to fine the guilty. Ok, here, short of abolishing government and regulated industry, there should be regulations to ensure the best person gets the job. (The technical term is market failure). Libertarians would disagree with me here. I think you will find there are such already in place, they do not work very well. Often there are quotas to make it seem to be 'fair'. Any quota works in favor of some and against others.
            2. Racial etc. persecution does exist, the amount of it today in your and my country I'd guess to be negligible. But what is persecution? Violence is already illegal. Gangs of toughs beat up that group, businesses are confiscated, they are monitored more closely for infringement of laws.
            The successful Chinese businessman is 'invited' to play a game of golf with the general or the mayor. They voluntarily agree to bet on the game, big. For 'health' he had better lose. This does not happen here, but in a nation not far away. Ethnic small businesses are targeted to pay protection money -often by gangs of the same ethnicity. All this should be, and already is, illegal.
            When there is a group being specifically persecuted in this way, no special law is needed to stop it. Once it was Italians, Jews, Blacks, now gays. The law needed should not be discriminatory- for or against, I agree that there are often enforcement problems, the local police could then be given guidance on how to allocate resources. Attempts to inflict on police recruitment the usual meaningless personality tests favor only the con-artists, selection by quota degrades overall performance.

            In summary of my long boring post- bad stuff exists. Big government actions usually make things worse.

            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • -1
              Posted by Hiraghm 9 years, 8 months ago
              You were doing good til you said, "Once it was Italians, Jews, Blacks, now gays."

              Sorry, "gays" doesn't fit.
              Once upon a time, sheepherders were persecuted. Today, tobacco smokers are even more persecuted.

              I'm sorry, but Maph has burned out my giveashit.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by Lucky 9 years, 8 months ago
                H, I do sort of recall reports here and there of what is reported as unprovoked violence against gays (or some group, ah yes Jews recently in France). I assume not frequent. Even if it were frequent, say from some mass movement there should be laws against violence but not laws protecting specific groups. eg. man hits wife or vv, man bites dog, No special laws are needed. Hitting a gay or your spouse is no better or worse than hitting a sheepherder. Right now all Christian residents are leaving a province of Syria, there is a special tax, violence threatened against defaulters. I say, ideally there is from governments no discrimination, no special laws in favor or against individuals whatever their height color religion or lack of. Can argue about the blind or handicapped in wheel chairs.
                How LGBTs seem to be defending Islamists - the mind boggles!
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • Posted by Hiraghm 9 years, 8 months ago
                  Yes, the Christians are being forced out of the province of Syria, not by people saying bad things about them, not by people refusing to do business with them, not by people refusing to associate with them, but by people threatening them with violence and death.

                  Which is as illegal to do towards Bob the Individual as it is towards Bob the Christian (or Bob the Black, or Bob the LGBT....)
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by khalling 9 years, 8 months ago
        What "equal rights" are you referencing? Why should an employer be encouraged to hire a certain percentage of LGBTs? How is that efficient business practice? Am I not for equal rights? What does the color of one' s skin have to do with their skillsets? The only purpose in granting extra rights for groups is to force extra privleges everyone outside the group doesn 't get. If I was a baker and you wanted me to decorate a cake for a neo-nazi rally and I refused, have I violated someone's "equal rights?" Maybe hate groups deserve some extra rights because most of the rest of us refuse to associate with them. I know I wouldn 't hire someone who openly admitted he spent his off time hating people due to race or sexuality
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by edweaver 9 years, 8 months ago
          I totally agree. Doesn't that mean you are discriminating against a person who hates something you don't like? That being a person who hated someone because of race or sexuality. My point being, everyone should be able to make their own choice on who they associate with for what every reason they choose without government restrictions. We should just not be able to take violent actions that interfere with anyone's life, liberty or pursuit of happiness..
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by CircuitGuy 9 years, 8 months ago
          Your post addresses hiring quotas, not equal rights.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by khalling 9 years, 8 months ago
            Actually the post above does not. But if I have no african american employees and someone takes me to court for discrimination how can I prove I 'm not racist? Generally when we ' re looking at resumes we can 't tell if they are representing a protected group. But if ee say we are an EOE, that means you should tell us your in a protected group and we 'll give your resume preferential treatment. That was not the 1 st Amendments intent
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • -4
            Posted by 9 years, 8 months ago
            Of course. They know they literally have no ground to stand on if we're talking about equal rights, so they try to use the red herring of quotas to distract from the issue of rights.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by khalling 9 years, 8 months ago
              Who is this " they"? I am me and I know no such thing. The Civil Rights Act led to many such laws including forced busing. That was only one of my points. The 1 st Amendment assured rights should be protected. The issue was (is) enforcement.
              The CRA just affected our ability to freely associate and it got involved in commerce telling us how we could hire. Now we have commissions making it their business our business, and other Acts which elevate the needs of some over everyone elses 's needs /desires. I don 't hire based on skin color, religion or sexual orientation. But thats what the Equal Opportunity Act wants. It actually incentivises protected groups by giving them special privleges for govt contracts over individuals. Shouldn 't this be the exact opposite? No discrimination. But that 's not the case. If you are in a protected group you get a preferred status for state /city /fed contracts. It 's not red herrings, it 's what the Act has lead to. Making it a valid point to bring up. The CRA and EOA have no place as a stakeholder in my decicion -making. That is not synonomous with being a racist bigot whatever
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • -1
              Posted by Hiraghm 9 years, 8 months ago
              As 'rights" are an individual attribute, "equal rights" would be based upon the individual, not identity groups.

              Therefore, the entire 1964 Civil Rights act is based upon a false premise.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • -1
          Posted by 9 years, 8 months ago
          I don't support quotas in business. They just tend to do more harm than good. The sort of protection I support is just the same as those protections enumerated for other groups in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Quotas are not part of that. As for the argument about extending tolerance to hate groups, I would say no, that's not necessary, as that would turn the whole concept of tolerance on its head. Remember, every positive carries a negative. If you push any issue hard enough and deep enough, it breaks through to its counter side. Even something as beautiful as love can be twisted into an unhealthy obsession if taken to an extreme. As Aristotle says, "The ideal lies at the mean between excess and deficiency."
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • -6
        Posted by 9 years, 8 months ago
        I'm pretty sure I'm correct. AJAshinoff just can't see the prejudice because he's so completely immersed in it that he's no longer even aware of it. It's like asking a fish what the water is like. Now granted, I'm sure there are some members of the Tea Party who support Civil Rights (after all, the movement is large enough that simple laws of probability guarantee a variety of opinion), but supporters of Civil Rights seem to be a minority within the movement. Since our society has essentially made open bigotry and prejudice unacceptable, most people who oppose equal rights do what AJAshinoff is doing, and preform mental gymnastics to try and logically argue how opposition to Civil Rights is not actually opposition to Civil Rights.

        For another example, watch this video from Texas where a religious pastor tries to argue that freedom of religion gives her the right to discriminate against gays, lesbians, transgender people, and Jews in her business:

        Houston Pastor Says Religious Freedom Means the Right to Discriminate Against Gays, Jews:
        http://tfninsider.org/2014/05/16/houston...

        This is what opposition to Civil Rights looks like today. Those who support bigotry and prejudice have learned to cloak themselves in the language of their victims. But the smoke screen is easily penetrated by anyone who actually understands how persecution works, as seen in the above video where the woman accidentally steps out from behind her mental screen and speaks clearly for a moment, before retreating back behind the veil of language.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 9 years, 8 months ago
          Avoid these question like you did the biological one.

          How are homosexuals not male or female like everyone else?

          How are the existing rights for all human beings not applicable to homosexuals?

          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • -1
            Posted by 9 years, 8 months ago
            They are applicable. The problem is that members of the LGBT community are not being treated equally in society.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 9 years, 8 months ago
              There is no limitation placed on the homosexual community in anyway. Anything normal couples have in society can be achieved by homosexual couples by way of legal means. This includes civil unions, transfer of wealth apron death, and power of attorney. What sought by the homosexual agenda is to be considered normal and or natural. Its not either of those things.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by Hiraghm 9 years, 8 months ago
                No such thing as "homosexual couples". There is no equivalence or alternative to heterosexual marriage. No contractual relationship between two members of the same sex fulfills the purpose of the mating ritual known as "marriage".


                I repeat as I've said all along... homosexuals can get married, just like heterosexuals can; they have the same onus and restrictions.

                If I wish to get married, I have to find a willing (unmarried) member of the opposite sex.

                If I have a "right" to marry whomever I love... there are a number of women out there one of whom is going to have to be coerced into marrying me in order for me to act upon my "right".
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • -4
                  Posted by 9 years, 8 months ago
                  A law which forbids both rich and poor from sleeping under a bridge at night is a law of equality, but it is not a law of fairness, as it clearly hurts only the poor, though all people are required to follow it equally. Sometimes laws do need to take class into consideration in order to be fair.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • -2
                Posted by 9 years, 8 months ago
                Actually, homosexuality *is* both normal and natural. The scientific evidence for biological and genetic origins is incredibly strong. Also, you're failing to recognize the distinction between equal rights under the law and equal treatment in society. Regardless of whether the law SAYS they're equal (and civil unions are not equal to marriage, by the way), the fact remains that society treats the LGBT community like they're not equal, but rather second class citizens. Therefore, legal protections are necessary.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • Posted by Hiraghm 9 years, 8 months ago
                  And there's scientific evidence of the biological and genetic origins of diabetes and Alzheimer's. Doesn't make them normal or natural, either.

                  Answer the questions:

                  1) What is the function of the reproductive organs?
                  2) What is the function of romantic feelings?

                  If you can answer those two questions honestly, it becomes obvious that people suffering from LGBT have an abnormality.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                  • -2
                    Posted by 9 years, 8 months ago
                    "And there's scientific evidence of the biological and genetic origins of diabetes and Alzheimer's. Doesn't make them normal or natural, either."
                    ---
                    Actually, yes it does. The very definition of the word "natural" is something that has its origins in nature. And nothing could be a bigger part of nature than genetics and biology.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 9 years, 8 months ago
                  Again I ask

                  Explain how it is biologically normal or essential?

                  Homosexuality is indefinable not natural despite how much you'd like it to be (Parts don't line up for any conceivable biological purpose, remember?)

                  Also, NEWSFLASH: Neither society nor I have to like or even approve of anything you or I do. This is the homosexual agenda: to force acceptance of their unnatural deviation. You make that point perfectly clear in your words.

                  Explain how homosexuality has a biological purpose or is essential to the propagation of the species?
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                  • -3
                    Posted by 9 years, 8 months ago
                    Natural = created by nature

                    There is a common misconception that "natural" is equivalent with "common." Nothing could be further from the truth, as nature is in control of both common and uncommon characteristics. The fact that a particular trait is uncommon does not in any way make it unnatural.

                    Sexual orientation is controlled by biology, and therefore must be subject to mutation and deviation, just like every other aspect of biology.
                    _________________
                    "I don’t really have a word “artificial” ...I don’t really have a word “unnatural.” I say, “if nature permits it, it is natural if nature doesn’t permit it, you can’t do it.” You may not be familiar with the fact that nature allows that, but the fact of your unfamiliarity doesn’t make it unnatural. If it is unfamiliar to us we tend to say it is artificial or unnatural."
                    — R. Buckminster Fuller
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 9 years, 8 months ago
                      A load of crap.

                      There is nothing natural or biologically productive about homosexuality. While its origin may be some type of biological imbalance or deficiency it does nothing to propagate the species. Homosexuality is either an imbalance or deficiency OR it is a human choice to deviate form the gene pool.

                      This is a REALITY that no amount of agenda can spin.

                      Even so, homosexuals are MEN and WOMEN are entitled to the same rights as every other man and woman. To provide RIGHTS for sexual preference (biological or otherwise) is ridiculous and invites chaos.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by LetsShrug 9 years, 8 months ago
                        "..... homosexuals are MEN and WOMEN are entitled to the same rights as every other man and woman. To provide RIGHTS for sexual preference (biological or otherwise) is ridiculous and invites chaos. "
                        Yes, yes and YES! Can we please kill the topic now and lay it to rest?
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ stargeezer 9 years, 8 months ago
          If you think that maph, you've never read the posts that are following somebody here in the gulch confessing to be a Christian. I've received PM's from MANY Christians who tell me that they just couldn't stand the pressure that would fall on them if they admitted to being a Christian on here.

          Unlike the LGBT people you campaign for with the religious fervor of a true acolyte, we religious people ARE a protected class, specifically enumerated in the bill of rights, with our activities listed first in that shopping list of rights and privileges.

          As a man interested in science (but not blinded by it's limitations) I know and understand the meaning of the term "cull" and "mule" as expressed in genetics. Perhaps you might want to examine that as a part of your "open minded research" into sexuality.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by khalling 9 years, 8 months ago
            I do not know who dinged you, star. This is the second time I have seen this comment:
            "we religious people ARE a protected class, specifically enumerated in the bill of rights, with our activities listed first in that shopping list of rights and privileges."
            I'm not sure where you get that? But, I'll start another post regarding this...
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ stargeezer 9 years, 8 months ago
              First Amendment. First clause.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by khalling 9 years, 8 months ago
                "The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights."
                This is NOT about protecting groups-this is specific to individuals' rights. Please read the first part of the clause....PROHIBITS the making of a law respecting an establishment of religion
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • -2
                Posted by 9 years, 8 months ago
                The First Amendment actually only protects religious belief from being prohibited by the government. It does not protect religious belief from discrimination from non-government entities, such as a private business. The Constitution is directed at the government, not the people. That's why religious belief needed to be specifically mentioned in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, because that *is* directed at the people.

                Prior to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, private businesses could have legally discriminated against you for your religious beliefs all they wanted. The First Amendment provides no protection against that.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • Posted by Hiraghm 9 years, 8 months ago
                  " It does not protect religious belief from discrimination from non-government entities, such as a private business."

                  This is true.

                  "That's why religious belief needed to be specifically mentioned in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, because that *is* directed at the people. "

                  The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is NOT part of the Constitution, it is in violation of the Constitution.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • -1
            Posted by 9 years, 8 months ago
            Yes, religious belief is a protected class under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and I fully support that protection. You are also correct that there is no legal protection for the LGBT community (at least on a national level; several cities and some states have protection). However, the fact that the LGBT community doesn't have nationwide legal protection does not mean that they don't NEED protection.

            If I say that someone needs legal protection, pointing out that they don't already have it doesn't refute my argument.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 9 years, 8 months ago
              Actually Religious beliefs if protected by the First Amendment. That kinda happened well before 1964, no?

              "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

              How are homosexuals, transsexuals, transvestites, etc not male or female and not protected with the same rights as everyone else as set forth by the Constitution?
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • -2
                Posted by 9 years, 8 months ago
                You'd think that simply saying "everyone has equal human rights" would be enough to protect minorities from persecution. Unfortunately, history has shown us that that simply isn't true. In order for minorities to be protected from persecution, it is necessary to create legal protections explicitly targeting them.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • -1
          Posted by Hiraghm 9 years, 8 months ago
          I would go further than that Houston Pastor:

          Freedom means the right to discriminate against anyone, for any reason whatsoever.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • -1
            Posted by 9 years, 8 months ago
            Wrong. There is no freedom to enslave others.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by edweaver 9 years, 8 months ago
              Our government has done it through taxation and regulation.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • -1
                Posted by 9 years, 8 months ago
                Regulation is necessary to ensure health, safety, and fairness. Taxation is necessary to fund the military, police, court systems, and public services.

                Granted, they both hold the potential to be taken to excessive and harmful extremes, but to do away with either of them completely would be harmful in a different way.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by edweaver 9 years, 8 months ago
                  Never said anything about eliminating. Tax and regulation certainly is required but it must be kept to a bare minimum because when it becomes excessive it makes everyone slaves to the institution. IMHO we are more than double the minimum both in taxes and regulation. We have turned the producers into tax slaves and the poor into slaves of the handouts.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • Posted by Hiraghm 9 years, 8 months ago
                  "Regulation is necessary to ensure health, safety, and fairness."

                  Check your premise.

                  Where is it written that health, safety and fairness must be ensured? Certainly not in "nature". The Founding Fathers demanded liberty or death, not liberty or health, safety and fairness.

                  And either there is no freedom to enslave others, or there is freedom to enslave others. You can't make exceptions for what YOU think are noble causes.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 9 years, 8 months ago
    "it seemed to me that the word “Socialist” had literally no meaning whatsoever, and was just a negative byword that people could use as an empty vessel to describe any and all political policies they disliked"
    Sometimes it is, but I think the most common substantive meaning is paying for private goods with public monies. A private good is something like housing b/c the use of a house could be denied to those who don't pay for it. A public good is something like policing b/c there's no way to exclude those who'd rather not have the benefit of policing. The problem comes when the gov't pays for something that proponents say benefits everyone (e.g. providing education, propping up the financial system). When critics scream, “but that's socialism!!” what I think they're saying is, “this is not a public good like policing.”

    “disturbing trend I've noticed among the Tea Party is that they almost universally oppose Civil Rights, especially equal rights for the LGBT community”

    Almost universally? I wonder if there are any surveys. This could be true, but it doesn't ring true. You'd think they'd want the govt to leave LGBT people alone.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by Hiraghm 9 years, 8 months ago
      I tend to agree with what you're saying, with the caveat of replacing "public good" with "common good", as in:

      "The problem comes when the gov't pays for something that proponents say benefits everyone (e.g. providing education, propping up the financial system). When critics scream, “but that's socialism!!” what I think they're saying is, “this is not a common good, like policing.” "

      Maph operates under a false premise; that the "LGBT" community is fundamentally and uniquely different from everyone else. This is like saying that the left-handed are fundamentally and uniquely different from everyone else.

      He can only represent this by painting with a broad brush and lumping both appetites and genetic anomalies together, using the latter to mask the former.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • -1
        Posted by 9 years, 8 months ago
        The members of the LGBT community themselves are not fundamentally different at all. A big part of the LGBT platform is the idea that everyone is the same inside. Remember that new Burger King marketing campaign a few weeks ago about the Proud Whopper? Yeah...

        But in spite of that, the fact remains that the LGBT community faces disproportionate persecution in society, and because of that there need to be special protections put in place. You can't blame people for trying to use the law to defend themselves when they're under attack.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by Hiraghm 9 years, 8 months ago
          No, they don't face disproportionate *persecution*. Like an infant, you (and they) want to whine and scream persecution because the rest of us won't embrace and accept their deviancies from normal as BEING normal.

          It's not persecution to refuse to reverse the entire definition of western cultural evolutionary history, to ignore the reality of the nature of homo sapiens, to ignore the most basic and simple logic, in order to make members of the LGBT not-feel different or abnormal.

          I DON'T CARE ANYMORE. No, I don't mean I'm indifferent; I mean screw them. To hell with them. There are individuals in this society who EVERY SINGLE FREAKING DAY have to deal with being different, who have to deal with being defectively different, even. They get up in the morning, the deal with it, they go to bed at night. They don't give up, they don't whine to every ear within hearing about how rough they have it, or how it's somebody else's fault because somebody else won't be put out and change his normalness just to make them feel better.

          Bang your drum all you like; I'm not listening. Keep banging your drum, and the LGBT "community" will be dealt with the same way any other spoiled child is dealt with when his mother has had enough of his acting up.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by 9 years, 8 months ago
            "No, they don't face disproportionate *persecution*."
            ---
            Yes they do. Sticking your head in the sand and denying reality won't change the facts.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • -1
              Posted by Hiraghm 9 years, 8 months ago
              No, they don't. I repeat... it's not persecution because I refuse to agree that a tail is a leg and prop you up so you can stand on it.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by Hiraghm 9 years, 8 months ago
          You're telling me that a transexual is not different from a homosexual? That's like saying a male heterosexual is no different from a female heterosexual... if we accept your premise that they aren't simply males/females with deviant appetites and/or mental/emotional disorders.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by 9 years, 8 months ago
            I think you're taking the statement "We're all the same inside" a bit too literally. It doesn't mean there are no differences between people, because obviously that isn't true. Rather, it simply means that everyone is human, and everybody deserves a basic level of dignity and respect. As it says in the Declaration of Independence, "All men are created equal."
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • -1
              Posted by Hiraghm 9 years, 8 months ago
              Please show me where everybody deserves a basic level of dignity and respect?

              Would this include the inner circle of the Nazi party? Skinheads? Child molesters?

              Yes, I know what it says in the DoI, and as I've said, I could kick the Founding Fathers in the nads for sticking that in the DoI; but they could hardly be expected to see 200 years down the line when willfully stupid people would take what they were saying out of context.

              In the context of the preamble to the DoI, "equal" is addressing social class differences, not inherent physical or mental differences. The purpose was to justify their rebellion against the King.


              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • -1
                Posted by 9 years, 8 months ago
                "Would this include the inner circle of the Nazi party? Skinheads? Child molesters?"
                ---
                Yes, it would. When prosecuting Neo-Nazis and child molesters and inducting them into the criminal justice system, they still retain a certain level of basic human rights which cannot be violated, even though they've broken the law. The Constitution specifically forbids cruel and unusual punishment because the Founding Fathers recognized that even criminals have human rights.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • Posted by Hiraghm 9 years, 8 months ago
                  Excuse you, but I didn't say neo-nazis, I said members of the inner circle of the nazi party... and not being American, whatever rights they have are not protected.

                  Again with the troll-bait, Maph. That's not why the bit about cruel and unusual punishment was put in the Constitution. I've already explained it to you elsewhere, I don't feel like repeating myself to the willfully obtuse.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ stargeezer 9 years, 8 months ago
          What you are seeking are not protections, they are exceptions. You want laws that exceed those any other group has. Perhaps if the group was not so typically "in your face" it would not be so opposed and the laws that the rest of us find adequate would be enough.

          Then there is the whole science thing where there is no proof of the existence of a gene that is the trigger for homosexuality. Without that proof it is a desire, a lust, a wish, not a physical, identifiable, sex. Odd that there are genes for both male and female and genetic examinations of homosexual individuals render no statistical variation from whichever sex that person is. The genome is mapped and the reason behind each pair is known, at least to the specific area they control. From eye color to number of toes, it's documented and no homosexual genes were found.

          The best case to prove your path might be to have reinstated into the PDR as a psychological disorder. Then efforts could then be made once more to cure it - but that's not what you want, is it?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by 9 years, 8 months ago
            "You want laws that exceed those any other group has."
            ---
            No, I just want the same laws that already protect race, religion, and sex. These are already protected classes under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, so it's not logical to say that the LGBT community wants protection above and beyond what other groups have when we're just asking for the same protection that is spelled out for other groups in the Civil Rights Act. The LGBT community was not included in the Civil Rights Act, and that needs to be corrected.

            Also, the human genome is not nearly as well understood as you seem to think. There are still many, many aspects that are totally unknown.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • -2
              Posted by Hiraghm 9 years, 8 months ago
              Yes, and making assumptions about the unknown aspects of the human genome and applying those assumptions to a perceived problem is not only bad science, it's faith - bordering on religion.

              The LGBT community was not included in the Civil Rights Act, for the same reason the Elks and Girl Scouts weren't.

              LGBT
              is
              not
              a
              sex
              or
              race.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • -4
      Posted by 9 years, 8 months ago
      "Almost universally? I wonder if there are any surveys. This could be true, but it doesn't ring true. You'd think they'd want the govt to leave LGBT people alone."
      ---
      It's not the government that the LGBT community is afraid of. Persecuted minorities typically view the Federal government as a protector, rather than an aggressor. I'll give you three guesses as to who they feel they need to be protected from, and I don't think you'll need the last two... ;)
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by Hiraghm 9 years, 8 months ago
        Further proof of their insanity. The one group everyone should be most afraid of, and they see them as protector.

        The LGBT "community" isn't a minority any more than the Homebrew Computer Club was a minority. Or than PETA or the Congressional Cigar Association...

        It's a massively diverse... not even "group" or "collection" of people whose only commonality isn't a sex or race, but any appetite that's not heterosexual. Hence the need for the 4-letter-acronym.

        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 9 years, 8 months ago
    What total load of crap!! There are real things going on in the world, there are real needs for education and understanding-but this post/link is mal-education and complete mis-understanding.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo