should businesses be allowed to discriminate against gay people?

Posted by Rozar 5 years, 8 months ago to Economics
195 comments | Share | Flag

Saw this and it made me think of Maph. Maybe this will change your understanding, maybe not.

SOURCE URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBJ2e5f62Co&feature=youtube_gdata_player


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by John_Emerson 5 years, 8 months ago
    I'm afraid I have to agree with her on most points. If the government has the power to tell a homophobic baker he is required, by law, to bake a cake for a gay wedding, that same power can be used to tell me, a gay sound guy, that I'm required to provide the PA for a Westborough Baptist Church event.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by khalling 5 years, 8 months ago
      the baker is NOT homophobic. He has strong beliefs regarding marriage. See my comment to Maph. He was interviewed recently in the Denver Post and was emphatic that he was not opposed to selling any other kind of cake to the couple, as well he said he felt no prejudice against the lifestyle-including staff for his shop.
      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  $  Maphesdus 5 years, 8 months ago
        The baker was totally homophobic, but was trying to say that homophobia is not actually homophobia. His self-contradictory statements made it clear that he was just in denial. It doesn't matter if he claims to not have a problem with the lifestyle. If he opposes same-sex marriage, then he clearly DOES have a problem with it.

        Denying that their discrimination is actually discrimination is a favorite tactic of bigots.

        You ever notice how the phrase "I'm not racist, but..." is always followed by something incredibly racist? Yeah, this is sorta like that.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by khalling 5 years, 8 months ago
          seriously? My close friend is gay and in a relationship of many years. I was present when their first daughter was born in the hospital room. I stood up as a witness to her partner's adoption of their girls. I am against getting special status for marriage. I wish them well to have a partnership, a contract, a legal recognition. I am not homophobic in the least. Marriage already has a definition. you can't change it and expect it to retain its meaning. I am also not religious. I am also NOT supportive of marriage as a tax shelter. I say fix the system at the root. Millions of couples live together as partners, never choosing the state's sanction. They do not scream they are being violated or denied a right.
          You cannot legislate my mind to change.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Macro 5 years, 8 months ago
            You made a great point, actually.

            Still, I have somewhat of a problem with a few things... I mean, I'd rather not have the government involved with marriages in at all. Why should they have this kind of power of people's lives?

            If we lived on a society like that, of course I wouldn't want, as a gay man, any additional laws of this kind. But since we do live in a society where the government does that... I'ts only just for gay people to get the same legal rights as straight people.

            For instance, there were many cases of gay couples who couldn't be together on a hospital deathbed, as they were not really considered family. The partnership does nothing to solve unfortunate things like this one.

            There are some other similar situations like this one, and the partnership, again, does nothing.

            Again, this problem was created by the government. They gave at first this privilege to straight people, allowing them to enjoy their final moments together, and now we want the same. This created a problem, right? After us gay people, some other groups WILL want the same thing...

            All this could've been avoided if they never got involved in the first place... The free market would sort things out. Some hospitals would still not allow gay partners there, but many other hospitals would flourish in order to attend this part of the population, right?

            Really... To me all this sounds like: "from this day on, only white people will be able to enter certain places."

            This creates additional and unnecessary problems. Black people, latinos, all others will eventually want the same 'right' to enter these places.

            Same situation. Gay people, polygamists, and many others want the same 'rights' as straight people.

            -X-

            I'm positively writing a lot haha, sorry khalling! Please correct me if there's a flaw in my reasoning, okay? This kind of subject has the potential to make me a little blind sometimes...

            Again, I'm sorry for writing a lot.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by Zenphamy 5 years, 8 months ago
              I don't think the government had anything at all to do with the tradition of a spouse being with their other half at the death bed, or the children or vice versa, I think this has probably been happening since the dawn of mankind or shortly after.

              As for wanting the same' rights' as straight people, they already have them. What they seem to be striving for is some form of recognition and special dispensations for a birth defect group.

              Why in the hell would they want to be married anyway? I've been married 4 times and trust me, it aint all it's been touted to be.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by Macro 5 years, 8 months ago
                The government would not allow gay people near their loved ones during their final moments on hospitals. Quite a few people were denied visitation rights, and they had civil unions.

                That's all I'm saying.

                -X-

                We already have the same 'rights'? Are you sure?

                By 'rights' I mean all sorts of taxes-related benefits. I believe those are immoral, of course. And I would never want them for anyone, straight or gay, if we lived on a real capitalist society. That would be ideal.

                But we don't.

                We haven't achieved the ideal, yet, so I can understand how It makes gay people upset when they see straight couples getting extra 'rights', like:
                1. Being able to file taxes jointly;
                2. Being able to pass an estate tax-free to your spouse (huge tax burden for us. Some people lost their homes or businesses like this);
                3. Being eligible to social security and many other government related benefits.

                We pay the same taxes as citizens (actually a little bit more), but we don't get the same treatment. Until marriage is privatized, it's only moral for us the be treated in the same way, I guess. Do you think it would be fair for interracial couples if they didn't have these 'rights' above, while white couples have them? =/

                Oh, and if you're not bored by me, here's a short 2 minute video with David Boaz expressing his opinion on gay marriage:

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXrUdgTM...

                -X-

                Well, I'm sure marriage can be quite troublesome ha ha. Still, I'm really interested in things like hospital visitation rights. Those are not paid by taxes. Also, If my partner had a grave accident, I wouldn't be able to make any decisions regarding his treatment.

                Finally, birth defect group? That sounded quite offensive to me, Zen... Was it really necessary, man? Come on! =D

                Take care!
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by Zenphamy 5 years, 8 months ago
                  Well first of all I think it was probably hospitals that came up with the denial of access to dieing patients other than immediate family, not the government. If I remember right, it was a gay person that took it to court to try to force the hospital to let him in. I think the court denied the request at the parents request.

                  As to rights, all I see in your comments are benefits. Benefits aren't rights. They are gifts from your benevolent government. You're born with rights. I might support your request to the government for some of those benefits if you offered to pay for them so they don't steal more from me, and include the restoration of benefits to common law and polygamous and a few other forms of 'marriage.' Why do you propose taking a benefit from mixed couples? They're in the same boat as everyone else if they're just a couple.

                  As to hospital visitation rights, if you're really worried about you or your partner having visitation, a living will and signed, witnessed, and notarized instructions on the selection of the care decider and personal representative usually take care of that.

                  I'm sorry you're offended by the birth defect statement. It's certainly not meant to insult. But why are you offended by that? It's true, unless you'd rather think of the condition as choice and a better way for humans to be. I realize that religions don't agree with the birth defect part, some under educated LBGT very much like some deaf communities fighting the hearing implants for children, don't agree, and many in denial parents.

                  You take care as well!!

                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by Macro 5 years, 8 months ago
                    When the government grants gay couples the same legal status as straight couples, situations like this one on hospitals can be avoided, I suppose.

                    Yes, those are benefits! And I don't agree with them at all. As you said, they're just gifts. My point is: am I not already paying for these benefits for straight couples? Gay couples and polygamist couples/groups/associations(?) pay the same amount of taxes that you do, you get the gifts, we all don't.

                    You're the only ones with all of the benefits on all states, gay people get most of the benefits where their marriage is legal, and the poor polygamists are basically abandoned.

                    This creates an unnecessary problem. No one should have these gifts, right? It would be way more easier (and moral) for straight couples to renounce all of these these damn satanic gifts of death...!

                    People would start rioting on the streets if that happened though. *sigh* So, maybe, granting the benefits for all sorts of couples is the only solution for now... I can't think of a more reasonable solution.

                    The best alternative would be moving to a Randian society, yeah, but that won't happen in my lifetime.

                    -X-

                    P.S. I'm only referring to those benefits that straight couples already have, of course. I would never want an exclusive one just for gay people. That would be immoral. You would be paying for our comfort.
                    P.S.2. Oh, did I actually propose taking off the benefits of mixes couples? My bad, my English slips sometimes. Well, of course they deserve the same 'gifts'! What I wanted to convey was that, in the past, white couples had benefits but mixed couples didn't. That was bloody unfair, and this problem was only solved when mixed couples got the same legal status as well.
                    P.S.3. Yeah, the will is a great temporary solution!
                    PlayStation 4. Okay, no offense taken, dude! It's just that I don't think gay animals are exactly defective. We may just serve a different purpose in nature, like increasing the chances of survival of our sibling's offspring by taking care of them as well, even against predators. If we don't serve any function, how come we didn't go extinct? Mutations generaly die quite fast haha.

                    As a gay guy with no kids, I'm surely going to provide a lot for all my nephews!

                    See ya! ;-)
                    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 5 years, 8 months ago
                      They can't, for two reasons:

                      First, groups don't have rights, only individuals. So, granting "couples" the same legal status is contradictory.

                      Second, pairs of homosexuals don't make up "couples".

                      Further, You said "when", not "if". Don't be sure it will happen before the society collapses altogether, or finally gets fed up with political correctness and associated mental gymnastics for the sake of sparing the feelings of people who demonstrate on a daily basis that they deserve no such consideration.

                      Of course gay animals are defective, the same way a moose that's "in love" with a cow is defective. Just not, y'know, as amusing.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by Macro 5 years, 8 months ago
                        Exactly, only individuals should have rights. Married couples (groups), however, get quite a few tax benefits. This shouldn't happen.

                        We don't make up couples? I'm sorry, but I don't follow.

                        cou·ple: a. Two people united, as by betrothal or marriage.

                        On places where gay marriage is legal, we do make up couples, I suppose.

                        Gay people's feelings? Well, I also do not agree with the gay movement siding with statists. They can't be forgiven. However, I can also understand that they had no other choice, unfortunately. The average person isn't very bright and doesn't even know what libertarianism is, of course they would side with the first party who embraced them.

                        Gay people are part of the 'youth's ecosystem' now. Being even slightly rude to them won't get a group any future supporters.

                        Defectives? I'm not sure. Since our genes didn't go extinct for all these years, I'd like to think we must be serving some kind of purpose. Who knows, maybe our function isn't the same as yours.

                        Gay animals make great uncles in nature, If I'm not mistaken. We may not have offspring of our own most of the time, but we help taking care of our sibling's children, increasing their chances of survival. If something of this kind is our primary function, I'd say we're not defective at all.

                        Take care, dude.
                        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  $  Maphesdus 5 years, 8 months ago
                    I think the offense was at calling it a birth DEFECT, thus implying there was something wrong with it. A better way to put it would be to call it a genetic mutation. Having blue eyes is also technically a genetic mutation, but we certainly don't call that a defect.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by Zenphamy 5 years, 8 months ago
                      Well the reason I don't call it a genetic mutation is because it isn't. It's a birth defect resulting from the misapplication or generation of sex hormones in-utero. I'm pretty convinced that being born with a brain that's been sexed one way when the body is sexed the other is a defect and since it happens in-utero, that sounds like a birth defect to me and it also seems perfectly sensible to think of it as something wrong..

                      Blue eyes aren't technically or any other way a genetic mutation, they are simply one variation of many.
                      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 5 years, 8 months ago
                      I don't see it as a genetic mutation. At what point did this genetic mutation take place? Certainly before our ancestors were mammals, or other mammals wouldn't "carry" it.

                      I think calling it a genetic defect is a concession to the homosexual crowd's assertion that it's a physical manifestation, not a mental/emotional one.

                      Diabetes and hemophilia might also be considered genetic mutation... doesn't stop them from being defects.

                      I, for one, don't care what the offense was at. I'm offended by people trying to bully the normal into considering their abnormality... normal.

                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by John_Emerson 5 years, 8 months ago
                        I sort of bristle at calling it a defect. Homosexuality is within the normal range of human behavior. I don't wish to "bully" anyone - you're welcome to be as irrational as you wish, up to the point where it leads you to take actions which I deem to be to my detriment. You don't want to bake a cake for my gay wedding, you don't have to and the government shouldn't require you to. I don't have to buy a cake or any other baked goods from you, and the government shouldn't be involved. And I don't think the government should be involved in marriage: when you think about it, marriage is primarily a religious institution - government involvement, especially in saying which marriages are to be recognized and providing benefits (at taxpayer expense) for those marriages, violates the first amendment to the Constitution.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by khalling 5 years, 8 months ago
                  Macro, in Brazil your tax rate can ce defined by your sexuality and whether you marry someone of adifferent race? How is that even remotely enforced?
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by Macro 5 years, 8 months ago
                    I'm sorry, I guess I didn't express myself very well, Khal.

                    No, taxes rates here have nothing to do with sexuality. Married couples, however, get quite a few tax benefits.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by khalling 5 years, 8 months ago
              I am always for the govt taking their hand out of my pocket and leaving me alone. the hospital thing kinda bugs me because none of my gay friends ever had that problem. but I am not saying it never happens-just wonder how often nowadays. I'm more about the parental rights issue. all teh screaming about marriage and basically nary a peep about social services deciding if a gay parent is "fit" to adopt their own child? that is messed up.I am for whatever contract acknowledgement gays want, but they have to pick their own new word for it. why would they want the old traditional thing anyway? words have meaning. that is my point. nothing bigoted about it. I'm not sure what white people have to do with this discussion...how about only white people burn after 5 minutes in the sun, only white people seem to be allergic to grain....
              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  $  Maphesdus 5 years, 8 months ago
                Whenever Civil Unions have been allowed, they never had the same legal status as marriages. There were always more limited in scope. They are no substitute for true equal rights.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by Macro 5 years, 8 months ago
                I'm not sure about America, but that hospital thing used to happen here in Brazil a while ago.

                Many states now have acknowledged gay marriage this last year. That was necessary. Before, we couldn't adopt our partners' surnames, no way of joining our incomes in order to rent an estate, no way of including them as dependents on health plans, no adoption of children as a couple, no automatic inheritance in case the partner dies, we could not authorize risk surgeries for them.

                You see how a contract isn't enough? The absence of some of these things can seriously impair a gay couple's life. And they are all things that a free market could provide easily. Why should the government be the one responsible for this? I don't care for the notion of marriage at all, actually. I just care about these services above that I'm not allowed to get access to through a free market because the government prohibited them from doing so.

                About white people, that was just an example of what can go wrong when the government decides to control the market in that way. All sorts of problems.

                White people burn in the sun, yes, but they didn't give up because life isn't fair. They fooled nature and invented the sunblock! And maybe, someday, they'll be able to purchase some kind of genetic enhancement ha ha.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by khalling 5 years, 8 months ago
                  In the US there is no such thing as automatic inheritance, its best to have a will. Also the adoption can happen, there are hurdles gay marriage would not address. The health insurance would be up to each employer but is kind of moot since Obamanationcare. The hospital thing could still be an issue. Other than the hospital consents and private policy issues which would be on hospital by hospital basis there is no big benefit outside of tax reasons which I have already pointed out may not be in their best interest anyway. Why cant partnership be called something other than marriage?
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by Macro 5 years, 8 months ago
                    Yup. Wills solve most of these problems, you're right.

                    I lol'ed at the Obamanationcare haha. Nice one!

                    -X-

                    Now, I just don't know what to think about this gay marriage matter anymore... I actually used to be quite a militant a few years ago, but then I realized we were just being used by left-leaning political parties. I kind of gave up trying to find solutions through the state... They will only increase taxes and spread even more of their control over our lives anyway. It's hopeless.

                    I'd just recommend people to leave a country where you think you're not being treated fairly... Changes may take decades of struggle before they happen, right? Rand didn't stay and wait for Soviet Russia to come to its senses, she got the hell out of it.

                    I wonder if I'll ever get to see a truly capitalist society in my lifetime. Such a country would easily be able to solve most of these small problems along the way, I suppose.

                    Who is John Galt?
                    Who is Satoshi Nakamoto?

                    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  $  Maphesdus 5 years, 8 months ago
                      We should form an LGBT Capitalist Society to spread fiscal responsibility and economic independence in the LGBT community! :D

                      Only question is how to get such an organization off the ground... >_>
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by Macro 5 years, 8 months ago
                        That sounds great! But yeah, I can't see it happening in the foreseeable future, unfortunately. =|

                        Most gay people here in Brazil, for example, didn't even care about socialism or capitalism... They just wanted to be able to marry. But then, the Left was faster and helped them out. Now, all these young people are being fed socialist ideals as we speak. =/

                        It won't be easy. If I started talking about capitalism near gay guys today, I would probably get some weird looks haha.

                        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  $  Maphesdus 5 years, 8 months ago
                          Oh yeah, I know. I have a cousin who's transgender, and she openly calls herself an unapologetic Socialist. When we discuss LGBT rights, she and I are in complete and total agreement with each other. But when we discuss economics, we butt heads. I love her to death, but I do worry about her. Yet at the same time, I can also understand why she thinks the way she does. When you're a member of a persecuted minority, it's easy to buy into a philosophy that promises equality and social justice, and most young people aren't informed enough to realize that Socialism can't actually deliver on that promise.

                          Sometimes I wonder if people who engage in persecution and discrimination realize that in doing so, they're actually helping to create the exact type of situation which causes Socialism to have such widespread appeal in the first place. If everyone just treated everybody else fairly to begin with, nobody would feel the need to seek justice through social reform.

                          I'm just lucky that I happened to have the opportunity to actually study socialism and capitalism on my own before anyone had the chance to indoctrinate me, otherwise I may have fallen into the same trap as my cousin.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by Macro 5 years, 8 months ago
                            Oh, I actually have a gay cousin who happens to be a socialist! He's a member of the Landless Workers' Movement here in my country.

                            I kinda feel worried about him as well. He was about to finish his master's degree in engineering, such a smart guy! But yes, I can also understand what made he go through this path. The guy suffered a lot in his life because of his sexuality... And as the socialists were the only ones here who openly embraced our cause, he joined them.

                            I kinda voted for one of these people... It's so hard to choose between a right-wing candidate who's allied to homophobic evangelical leaders and a left-wing one who's going to push gay marriage to all of our states. =/

                            So... I went for the short term purpose first. It's way more easier for us to lower gay discrimination than building a libertarian paradise, right?

                            I wish we had a libertarian candidate, but that won't ever happen.

                            No, they don't realize. Most conservatives are way too close-minded... I suppose gay people are just as bad as socialists in their views. So, they won't side with either. =|

                            And yeah, I had the same luck! About 99.997% of the population here in my state have never even heard of libertarianism. DAMN. LUCK. :D
                            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  $  Maphesdus 5 years, 8 months ago
            Well, you seem to be doing extremely well for the most part, but there is that one last little step. You might want to try talking to your gay friend and her partner about the whole civil union vs. marriage debate. See what they think.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by khalling 5 years, 8 months ago
              are you for the state legally recognizing polygamy as marriage?
              definition-ally speaking, it is something else. I do not deny polygamists' the right to have a legally binding contract(s), but they have to call it something else. Something that defines what it is they are doing.
              How do you feel about a brother and sister marrying?
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by Zenphamy 5 years, 8 months ago
                An announcement just came out of Utah that the state can no longer restrict polygamous marriage. The state doesn't have to issue a poly license, but the individuals can do their own marriage.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by khalling 5 years, 8 months ago
                  I thought they were just not going to arrest practicing polygamists. Theyey were clear a person could not legally be on more than one marriage certificate.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by Zenphamy 5 years, 8 months ago
                    You're correct about the marriage certificate from the state, but the court knocked down the criminal punishment for polygamous cohabitation.

                    See:http://reason.com/archives/2013/12/17/of-course-the-law-should-tolerate-plural
                    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  $  Maphesdus 5 years, 8 months ago
                No, I oppose polygamy because it's harmful to women. We also can't legalize incestual marriages because close relatives produce offspring with birth defects due to not having a wide enough gene pool. In both of these cases, there is empirical evidence demonstrating harm, whether its legalized or not. In same-sex marriages, however, there is no harm to anyone, and therefore no logical reason to ban it.

                So I am being logically consistent, I'm just using a different train of logic than you. ;)
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by LetsShrug 5 years, 8 months ago
                  Polygamy is harmful to women... hmmm. So their choice to do so should be removed for their own good? It is harmful to smoke...to drink excessively, to gamble, to visit the in laws.... c'mon Maph! Would you stop with this "I'm okay with laws so long as their good for you" shit? And what? Is there no "harmful" gay relationships? They're all prefect and rosy and no one ever gets harmed?
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by plusaf 5 years, 8 months ago
                  I disagree on several levels, Maph... polygamy isn't harmful to women so long as they're not being forced into it. If they willingly want to "marry" one guy and willing to live in a situation where he also "marries" other women, why should the government prohibit it?

                  Now, the legalities of divorce, inheritance and shit like that are WAY behind the curve in handling such issues, but other than that, freedom to "marry" whom you want (or "whoms" you want) is darned important.

                  As for sibling marriage, often thrown into the soup by extremists, first, if a couple of siblings believe they truly love each other and want to "marry" the government shouldn't prevent it. Unless they're mentally handicapped themselves, the most that should happen is that they're clearly informed that if they have offspring, the offspring have a higher probability of genetic or developmental defects than if they'd married non-siblings.

                  If they're willing to take that risk, who the hell are you or I or the gumblement to stop them?

                  And back to the laws not keeping up, that's one of the only reasons that marrying your dog, cat, house or tree is a bit awkward, too.

                  You're assuming a 100% chance of "harm" in all of those scenarios, and that is NOT "logical."

                  Sorry.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by khalling 5 years, 8 months ago
                    I think in the best interest of a society, siblings who wish to marry should NOT be informed of genetic deficiencies in offspring. don't you think that branch of the family tree should die out?
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by plusaf 5 years, 8 months ago
                      Sorry... that doesn't make sense to me... NOT informing them of the hazards would make it more likely that the branch WOULD reproduce, even if genetic problems might occur. Would that kill the branch? For the offspring, maybe, but it won't kill the branch of the married siblings and they just might try again and end up with a viable offspring...

                      Withholding such information deliberately is a contribution to society or is it intended as a punishment for the siblings?

                      What kinds of freely-entered-into contracts and relationships should be proscribed?
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by khalling 5 years, 8 months ago
                        ok, I was just joking there. never joke with an Objectivist. ok, if you have to have this conversation in the first place with siblings who wish to marry, what-are we on some remote island?! I'm a mother. my feelings start to kick in on siblings marrying or parent and grown child or ...
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by plusaf 5 years, 8 months ago
                          sorry... I missed the <humor> font...
                          Joking's fine, but it isn't obvious from text itself... context or smilies really help...

                          Oh, and for sibling or parent/child "marriages," part of the usual diatribe does go to birth defects and genetic stuff, but rarely includes the possibility that one of them might be sterile or be willing to be sterilized, after which that issue is moot.

                          And, as I've tried to point out to LOTS of folks over the years, if the ONLY purpose of marriage is "perpetuating the species," well, I guess my last (current) marriage should be annulled, because my (current and for the past 23 years) wife had a hysterectomy before we were wed...

                          Another issue that rarely gets covered in the vehemence of "discussions."

                          Oh, and first wife and I never had offspring, either, though as far as we knew, both of us were not infertile. On the other hand, it is an honest statement when I say "I don't have any children that I know of." Details in my autobiography some day... :)
                          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 5 years, 8 months ago
                            I love how "normal" and "intended" get twisted into "mandatory".

                            It's like suggesting one didn't really have sex because one wore a rubber.
                            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  $  Maphesdus 5 years, 8 months ago
                      Well, depending on the nature of the condition, they might not need to be informed. They might be able to tell just by looking at the child. Of course that depends on the nature of the condition, but still...
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by khalling 5 years, 8 months ago
                  wait-I can show you lots of evidence about any kind of marriage where it was harmful to women. men too-why is polygamy harmful in concept?
                  Aids is harmful and although not exclusive to homosexual males, a high risk and the statistics bear me out on this-so is sickle cell anemia in blacks.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by khalling 5 years, 8 months ago
              she. you think we haven't maph? lol what about me makes you think I don't discuss?
              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  $  Maphesdus 5 years, 8 months ago
                Alright, what did they say? :)
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by khalling 5 years, 8 months ago
                  let me get comfy on the couch here. OK. They disagreed with me. But many of their arguments were feeling based. Here are the ones that I have some trouble figuring out a remedy for. teh hospital closest relative. The whole adoption process. That even though the partner who is not the birth mother has been there from teh start as a loving parent and obviously part of teh planning and saving for the special procedures, they still undergo the state sponsored are you a fit parent deal through social services to be deemed the housekeeping approval seal. what nonsense. as if birthing a child qualifies you as a fit parent. I am not sure now that Colorado (where I was from) now that they have legalized gay marriage , fixes this problem. I'll bet it doesn't. do you know? also, the marriage law has passed in Colorado and they still haven't legalized for themselves. Maybe after 12 years together, they realize it is a desire more than a practical solution to a problem or a right. they have the security of acknowledgement and the hospital issues never happened to them. actually, they benefited from the lack of recognition. My friend for several years qualified for earned income credit as a single mother, even though her partner provided for their household. I'm fine with that. stupid tax laws should be exploited for the citizen's benefit.
                  Ultimately, they want to be recognized as valid.in their choice to be in a relationship. that's an emotional argument and I can logically point out how they are validated every day in their lives by people who they discern as important or worthy. They both wear rings, which is a pretty significant and telling symbol of fidelity. They are respected members of our community and their church, I also stood up with them when both of their children were baptized- I just don't see a logical reason for trying to hijack the traditional meaning of a word-other than for emotional reasons. do NOT get me started on those baptism services. as part of the regular service one of the hymns was One Tin Soldier. I was furiously writing a "discussion" on the program and passing it to my mom-who drove in for one of the happy baptisms.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by j_IR1776wg 5 years, 8 months ago
          "The baker was totally homophobic," And the gay customers are totally hetero-phobic. What has this got to do with the baker's property rights?.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Macro 5 years, 8 months ago
            Err... Not really, man. I'm pretty sure hetero-phobia isn't really a thing, or is it? I've never seen gay people bashing straights haha.

            The gay couple wasn't being heterophobic. They were just being immoral and stupid by forcing the baker to make business with them. Even a straight black couple could do that if the baker were racist, 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
            • -1
              Posted by Hiraghm 5 years, 8 months ago
              They were being heterophobic.
              If a straight black couple did it they would be racist themselves, for forcing the issue.

              You've never seen homosexuals bashing heterosexuals? What planet have you been living on?
              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  $  Maphesdus 5 years, 8 months ago
                So if a black couple went to a bakery owned by a member of the KKK, and he refused to sell them a cake, and they sued him for it, the black couple would be the ones engaging in a racist act? Come on now...
                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 5 years, 8 months ago
                  You're presuming "either-or" where none exists...

                  "the black couple would LIKEWISE be the ones "

                  Yes. Jamming your values down someone else's throat is bigotry. When the bigotry involves race, it's trigonom... I mean it's generally called racism.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by Macro 5 years, 8 months ago
                Again, I don't think heterophobia is a thing... I mean, gay people in general do not have a problem with being around straight people. Why should we?

                I've also never seen a considerable amount of straight kids resorting to suicide just because some gay bullies decided to turn their lives into a nightmare.

                Actually, I've never seen that happen, ever.

                The gay couple forces the baker to serve them, so they're being heterophobic?
                The black couple forces the baker to serve them, so they're being racist?

                I'm sorry, I don't really see it, Hira.

                To me, the gay couple really didn't have anything against straight people. They just did not respect the baker's right of following his religion's precepts.
                And the black couple, I'd say they also didn't have anything against white people. They just did not respect the baker's right of being racist if he wanted.

                No, I've never seen a considerable amount of gay people engaging in straight-bashing. =/

                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  $  Maphesdus 5 years, 8 months ago
            Oh, so standing up for their rights and fighting back against persecution is heterophobic now? Please, don't be ridiculous. The regulations regarding property rights must naturally be stricter for commercial property than for residential property.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by j_IR1776wg 5 years, 8 months ago
              "The regulations regarding property rights must naturally be stricter for commercial property than for residential property."

              Why?
              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  $  Maphesdus 5 years, 8 months ago
                Because a business is interacting with the general public, and therefore is in a greater position to potentially cause harm.

                A government health inspector can inspect the kitchen of a restaurant, but not the kitchen of a home.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by j_IR1776wg 5 years, 8 months ago
                  This sentence perfectly captures the difference between an individualist (me) and a collectivist (you). I believe that restaurant owners and their patrons should be trusted to conduct their trade free of any government interference. You collectivists believe business people are inherently corrupt and will serve their patrons harmful products unless a government official is watching over their shoulders.
                  But what if a restaurant owner becomes a government inspector? Does he become suddenly incorruptible as soon as he dons his government garb and ID? I think not. A society cannot persist half free and half slave to government. End all regulation now!
                  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  $  Maphesdus 5 years, 8 months ago
                    Business owners are human beings. Human beings are inherently corrupt. You people worry so much about government corruption, you never give any thought to corruption from non-government entities. That view is incredibly foolish. A government regulator is certainly not incorruptible, but neither is a restaurant owner, and the regulator does serve a legitimate purpose.

                    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8-gjpv7s...

                    And I don't consider myself a collectivist. Rather I believe collectivism and individualism both have a legitimate place in society, and trying to eliminate either one will have dire consequences. It's like the right and left wings of an airplane: if you want to keep the plane flying straight, you need to keep both wings intact, and recognize that they're both necessary. The reason Communism failed is because they tried to cut off the right wing (individualism), and so their economy went into a tailspin and crashed. But taking the exact opposite view and saying that we should cut off the left wing (collectivism) instead will have the exact same consequences. The only difference is that we'll spin in the opposite direction.

                    For more about the problems of completely rejecting collectivism, please see this post:

                    http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/2c...
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by j_IR1776wg 5 years, 8 months ago
                      "To be fair, buying into Ayn Rand's theories does tend to make one believe that teamwork and cooperation (i.e. collectivism) are bad things, when in fact they're actually necessary to succeed in big business."

                      It's time we traded definitions of the words we use to make our point. I believe all of human history revolves around the relationship of the individual to the collective and is an attempt to answer a most basic question viz. What belongs to the individual and what belongs to the group? (I use collective, group, tribe, community, society, kingdom, state, commune, and democracy interchangeably as referring to the unlimited rule of the majority to take by force things owned by the minority, the smallest minority being the individual.)

                      Your quote above confuses teamwork which is the voluntary cooperation of individuals and collectivism which is the forced cooperation of individuals. Will you share your definition of collectivism?
                      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 5 years, 8 months ago
                  Why can't he?
                  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  $  Maphesdus 5 years, 8 months ago
                    Why can't a government health inspector can inspect the kitchen of a home? Because he has no reason to. Food prepared in the home is unlikely to be served to anyone except the people who live there, and maybe occasionally some friends and neighbors. As such, there is very little potential risk, and therefore no need to regulate. The same is not true of a restaurant that serves hundreds of customers a day. When serving food to a large number of people, sanitary considerations suddenly become much more important, and the state has every right to protect citizens by ensuring that all businesses adhere to certain health and safety regulations.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by  $  Mimi 5 years, 8 months ago
                      I’m not arguing either side on this debate, but I think there is a difference between regulating safety concerns and regulating how people ‘feel’. What causes potential harm to an individual emotionally is too open to interpretation, and if there was any way to actually record scientifically the level of pain felt, I think we would find the store owners would have suffered just as much pain as the customer.
                      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 5 years, 8 months ago
                      How is there little potential risk?
                      Seems to me the risk of someone not skilled (aka, professional) in food preparation is far more likely to poison someone than a professional in a restaurant.
                      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  $  Maphesdus 5 years, 8 months ago
      There's actually a simple solution to that problem: simply say that a business may discriminate against other business or organizations, but not against individual people. Problem solved.
      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 flanap 5 years, 8 months ago
    Let's just go all the way with this discrimination stuff

    Isn't it discriminatory for a business not to be open when people want it open? I would think for time in memorial people have been very frustrated over those unthoughtful, bigoted, uncaring, racist, sexist, misanthropic business owners who dare to have business hours. Don't they know that when they close, they are discriminating against all who want in while they are closed? They should be put to DEATH for their insensitivity to mankind!

    I mean if we are going to just defecate on everyone's freedom of association, let's be comprehensive in our application.
    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 5 years, 8 months ago
      Good point. Being closed at night is discriminatory to those of us who work nights. And mcDonald's only serving breakfast at certain hours, and *not* serving other kinds of foods during those same hours is, again, discriminatory against those of us with nocturnal lifestyles.
      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  $  Maphesdus 5 years, 8 months ago
      No, because the business is equally closed to everyone. Therefore, there is no discrimination.

      In order for operating hours to qualify as discrimination, they would have to say something like white people can shop at the store on memorial day, but black people can't.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by USAONENATIONUNDERGOD 5 years, 8 months ago
    Enough!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We call everything that someone does not like discrimination...ever go into a store and a clerk is just not happy that day...what do you do...go to another clerk...get over yourself if you just can not realize that sometimes you just have to move on!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by RevJay4 5 years, 8 months ago
      Right on, USA... All the PC crap from the left has put us into the situation where one must self-censor for fear of offending someone. Hey! Ya can't say your mind without "offending" someone on this planet. Not all are gonna agree with everything that everyone has to say, or whatever. I'm old enough to not give a crap and try to say my mind if I have something to offer. If the other person(s) doesn't agree with me, too bad for them.
      And, if the business owner has a problem with selling to whoever, that's his revenue loss and totally up to him to decide. Not some totalitarian government lackey with an honorific which he probably bought with butt kissing somebody. Ooops, there I go again, ranting.
      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 BambiB 5 years, 8 months ago
        Or you can say what you think and just not care what lesser minds think of your statements.

        I don't fear offending the politically correct. I actually kind of enjoy it - especially when it is not I, but the TRUTH that offends them!
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Zenphamy 5 years, 8 months ago
          Stay in there BambiB. I, for one, after only reading your commentary for a few weeks find your thinking and speaking refreshing, honest, straight-forward, and needed.
          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 5 years, 8 months ago
    "A better plan is to change the culture".

    We used to have a one-word term for this, and it was abhorred by freedom-loving types, like Objectivists pretend to be..."brainwashing".

    The best and most benign example from the past century (translation: the one example I can use that won't get me inundated with indignant, hateful replies) is the war on tobacco.

    See, I don't really care what people believe... so long as they come to their beliefs on their own, without having beliefs imposed on them by media, government, and others who lust for power over the human mind.

    EDIT:
    oops... there's another example I can use, mostly because the campaign has been far less successful... "Climate Change" / Environmentalism.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 5 years, 8 months ago
    As a former business owner, for the last 15 years, I resent that the government has ANY say in who I can and cannot hire. Further, I can refuse service to anyone I choose based on my own judgment. Whether homosexuality is or isn't moral or even natural is irrelevant, the fact is homosexuals exist. They need no more rights than any man or woman on Earth and should be given NO special consideration with regard to law, employment, or service rendered. If the business owner choose not to provide service then take your business elsewhere. This entire matter is to set the stage for lawsuits setting the stage for future civil rights violations which will strong-arm people into compliance with political correctness.
    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 AmericanGreatness 5 years, 8 months ago
    I'm preternaturally opposed to the use of terms like "homophobia, islamophobia, etc." being used to stifle debate.

    The baker story has NOTHING to do with being afraid of gays. It has everything to do with marriage having a definition for thousands of years and vocal minority demanding a change of that definition, AND property rights.

    If a store owner doesn't want to serve a customer for any reason whatsoever, that should his/her right, PERIOD!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • -1
      Posted by  $  Maphesdus 5 years, 8 months ago
      Actually, so-called "traditional" marriage has not existed for thousands of years. In fact, what existed traditionally was polygamy. The idea of monogamy is a relatively recent innovation brought about by capitalist society.

      Ludwig von Mises talks about this in his book refuting Socialism:
      http://www.amazon.com/Socialism-Sociolog...
      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 AmericanGreatness 5 years, 8 months ago
        Actually, marriage between a man and woman has existed for thousands of years. While polygamy did exist (and still does) in some societies, it was still between a man and a woman/women, and even polygamy was not the norm.

        But, just for the sake of the argument, even if we only look at the last 1,000 years or even the last 250 years, it must be recognized that the "traditional" marriage in western culture is superior to whatever came before it (as is western culture generally). The data is voluminous in support of this position. Facts are stubborn things, and A does equal A.

        That said, even if all of that were non known, it still comes down to property rights... plain and simple.
        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  $  Maphesdus 5 years, 8 months ago
          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 AmericanGreatness 5 years, 8 months ago
            He's definitely funny guy, but does nothing to refute my point. Even if we submit to his assertion of pre-16th century marriage (which volumes of historical fact disputes, despite his powerful argument of a significant .5% of population being some form of sexually amorphous), we're still left with the fact that now we know the undisputed superiority of western culture and traditional marriage of man/woman... much like we now know the benefits of hygiene, food refrigeration, and other essentials little known in pre-16th century.

            But again, you're still avoiding the issue of property rights, which are essential for freedom and liberty to flourish.
            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  $  Maphesdus 5 years, 8 months ago
              Property rights do not include the right to discriminate, at least not in commercial property. In your home, sure, you can discriminate all you like. But in business, there are certain regulations that must be followed.
              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 AmericanGreatness 5 years, 8 months ago
                That's categorically false. It's one of the fundamental tenants of property rights and freedom/liberty. A business should NEVER be compelled to do business with an individual or organization against its will.

                What right do you, or anyone else, have to compel me to sell my goods and services against my will? The flip-side is that I'm sacrificing revenue from you and all in your sphere of influence with my decision. But, if I accept that possible outcome, it's my choice.

                That's why the free-market is the best solution to discrimination of any variety. It discourages discrimination, because doing so can limit one's customer base and subsequent profits.

                If a government can force you to work for someone, what can't they make you do. Reverse the discussion... if you were gay and married to your same sex partner, how would you feel about the government forcing you to work for a company whose entire business model was built on the public relations effort to end gay marriage and outlaw homosexuality altogether? Force is force, and it's antithetical to freedom and liberty.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by MattFranke 5 years, 8 months ago
    Well, interesting isn't it? What happened to every business having a sign that said, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." A business owner and his agents have the utmost say on where their services are rendered, regardless of the cost. If they make a business choice one way or the other, it is their right to make it and their lot to deal with the ramifications of that decision. The free market will choose in the end whether it was a wise business decision or not. But even if this baker lost his business and home and car and had his life ruined by this decision; if he believes it to be the right one, nobody or nothing can ever take that away from him; and the more that is physically taken, will only reaffirm the rightness of it to him, all others be damned. If he has regrets, it is his to bear alone.
    That aside, I think that there is a whole lot of unnecessary discourse about the whole gay marriage thing. I'm sure I'll catch crap from both sides, but I guess I'll wade in.
    I think that both sides make the same dangerous mistake in their goals. One side seeks the sanction of government on their social contract between two people. The other side seeks to use government to interfere with the social contracts of others. Both sides argument perpetuates the same deprived philosophy; that the sanction of government is necessary for a contract to be valid. Simply two sides of the same coin, bigger government. I do not believe that the government has any business in anybody's marriage, or in their bedroom. Any argument to the contrary, in my mind, seems to be usually based on religious dogma or 'tolerance'; both of which seem to prevent man from making its own opinion on the matter. This is achieved with a tactful bit of force through moral or social conformity, feeding off our 'need' to fit in with the rest of whatever pack we happen to surround ourselves with.
    I think that the union between my wife and I is between us only; and if we knew then what we know now, we would not have gotten a marriage permit. (I know they call it a 'certificate', but I see it now for what it is; a tax, paying for the kings permission so to speak; and forming a new contract between the couple being married and the state. Obviously, now the state has a vested interest in the outcome of the marriage: money, property, children).
    Also, I don't think that marriage should be a reason for a tax break. I think that we should all be taxed at the same rate, married or single, equally according to the Constitution, and at a rate a hell of a lot less than it is.
    In the end, for me it is not an endorsement of homosexuality, it isn't. I don't generally see it as a healthy lifestyle, and there is plenty of evidence for that. It comes down to ones ability to make their own decisions, and deal with the consequences. They can deal with theirs as I will deal with my own. But I have no interest in controlling what others do. Why?? Because, I don't want to be controlled by anybody but myself. Because, I don't want to hear crap from anybody about the way I live my life. So both sides may do as you please, and think as you want; just don't expect anything from me one way or the other. I happen to be less than enthused at any excessive public display of affection, whoever it may be. Get a friggin' room. Anyone who seeks to use government force to push yourselves or your beliefs on others, can go pound sand; 'cuz frankly, I just don't give a $#i+
    That's all I got to say 'bout it.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by khalling 5 years, 8 months ago
      If a govt does not sanction the contract, then it can't enforce it. It follows that it cannot enforce your property rights either. There is property division when a couple splits up. Even if the couple had a handshake agreement there would be no way for the state to remedy in the cases of breach of contract. Ultimately if the state does not enforce property rights there would be no use for them and you would be in anarchy
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by dwcarmi 5 years, 8 months ago
    Everybody has an opinion on this. I believe that any business owner has the right to refuse service to anyone. Gay rights don't give them the right to force anyone to serve them. Who made them above anyone else. Do Blacks have a right to force their rights on someone else? It seems like gays and muslims are above the law because of political correctness. When are people going to wake up? This is nothing but the government using force to rule by tyranny.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  MikeMarotta 5 years, 8 months ago
    Annoying delivery, but that aside, the argument is libertarian, not Objectivist. The question does not identify the essential characteristics or necessary standard of judgment.

    It is easy enough to agree that the government should not force people into associations. That is beyond the purpose of government.

    The question that derives from the long narrative of "Atlas Shrugged" is whether you should choose to sanction your destroyers, to be a party to your own destruction. When you buy gasoline and you step into the station and see a cross or a picture of Jesus, do you never shop there again. Do you refuse to shop at Cosco because the founder and CEO is a Democrat who spoke at the last DNC? Do you withdraw your sanction from Microsoft, or Apple, or Samsung for their involvement with the government?

    In short, when should you discriminate on the basis of anything other than price and performance?

    Those questions underlie her delivery; and she hinted at what that means for The Gulch and Objectivism. The government indeed enforced Jim Crow segregation. The color barrier was broken not by Brown v. Board - though it was important in bringing the government in line with society. The color barrier was shattered first in baseball - the American game - by Jackie Robinson. But even before that, Jesse Owens in the Olympics was the harbinger of change in America, though it was still then hard to see. The point here is that The Strike will eventually change the way American does business with the government. But that will come from within the hearts and minds of uncounted individuals long before it shows up in the halls of Congress.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by khalling 5 years, 8 months ago
      George Washington Carver, Frederick Douglas-um-they were well before Jesse Owens. Only sports figures can effect significant racial change in the US? hmmm
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  MikeMarotta 5 years, 8 months ago
        No one was going to let a colored family move in next door because some guy made peanut butter. Carver was rejected from the first college he was accepted to when they saw that he was a Negro. His work across many fields was not recognized widely until 1941, just before his death.

        And Frederick Douglass lived before Jim Crow. The re-segregation laws of the post-Reconstruction era came after the states were re-admitted. Plessy v. Ferguson was not heard until 1896, a year AFTER Douglass's death.

        The succeeding 50 years were the days of segregation that were changed. Americans are all about sports as an equalizer. It is why baseball was the national pastime. You probably do not know little guys like Luis Aparicio, another "minority" player whose presence was (racially) unremarkable by 1961, only 15 years after Jackie Robinson, but in the middle of the whole Civil Rights Marches and all that. By then, 1961, the discussion was over... but it would be three more years before the 1964 Civil Rights Bill announced that Congress got the message.

        Anyway, the point is that sports and business are the equalizers in America. Baseball is the national sport precisely because it is democratic. The mix of skills do not favor mere strength and size.

        Sadly and I mean horribly sadly, science is still a domain for racial and sexual discrimination, precisely because it is ACADEMIC and POLITICAL and often TAX-SUPPORTED. (The Jews who built the atomic bomb did not come from Ivy League schools; most came from Europe. Feynman went to MIT before he went to Princeton. Ivy League schools limited Jewish enrollment to 10% lest the WASPS be swamped.) Today, women discriminate against other women in physical science. That is a proven statistical study just a couple of years ago: in a blind test of resumes for a lab manager's job, senior managers women and men alike, rated male candidates more qualified than female despite the absolute equality of their credentials. (Read about it here:
        http://orgtheory.wordpress.com/2012/09/2...)

        In computers, the matter seems to be different: Carly Fiornina, Marissa Mayer. My first job as a computer operator in 1978, I had a female boss and have had many since.
        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 BambiB 5 years, 8 months ago
          >> Today, women discriminate against other women in physical science.

          Maybe they know something you don't, specifically that women are generally inferior to men in physics (and engineering generally, for that matter). But in specific regard to physics, I would refer you to the desperate attempts by the CEEB to gender norm the Physics Level II Achievement test. After much effort and considerable angst, they concluded they could gender norm the test or test knowledge of physics - but not both. In point of fact, they determined that the women did slightly better than men when the problems were "cookbook" requiring simple computation. But for more advanced problems in physics requiring more original thinking (the part that made the test "Level II") the women failed miserably.

          Bear in mind that this is the major testing organization for most college admissions, and that they were greatly concerned that their tests might be "prejudicial" on a gender basis, and that they were willing to reformulate the entire test to get a gender-normed result with the single caveat that the test had to test advanced knowledge of physics.

          It couldn't be done.

          Now, for a real-world look at women in physics/engineering, go to any university and check the student population. Majority women? Mostly. Except maybe at the academies and at engineering schools. Go to the college of engineering. Majority women? Hell no. Not even close. Is it because engineering doesn't pay well? Because it's a career with no future? Is it because a woman will make more money with a degree in English Literature? Is it because women are being discriminated against in engineering? (If so, how… exactly how?) Or is it more likely that women's brains just don't work that way?

          I'm not saying that there's no such thing as a good female engineer (though I've yet to meet one). But if you had to bet on credentials, i'd go with the male engineer. For one thing, I know his grades haven't been inflated by a "politically correct" instructor.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by khalling 5 years, 8 months ago
            Heddy Lamar -great engineering inventor who did not go to engineering school-oh and damned fine actress, she is the acknowledged inventor of the frequency hopping spread spectrum system which was highly valuable to military communications during WWII and after
            Madame Curie
            Voltaire's mistress
            we work with many highly talented female engineer/inventors all the time.
            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 BambiB 5 years, 8 months ago
              This reminds me of a "Black History Month" display when I was working at Bell Labs. They had maybe 30 posters of people and their (often dubious) achievements.

              I was actually glad they didn't have a "white history month". At the same level of accomplishment, there would have been no way to get into the building, it would have been so stuffed with posters, even if all the posters were just stacked up instead of on display. For that matter, the parking lots might have also been filled.

              So it is with GOOD female engineers. You cite three over a period of several centuries - the 18th century, the 20th century. What? You skipped the 19th century? Couldn't think of any, eh?

              Okay, I don't know much about Voltaire's mistress. (Neither do you - or you'd have used her name… she did have a name, didn't she?) Curie makes everyone's list of female scientists - because there are so few of note. Was she an engineer? And (wild hand-waving) maybe you have one or two "highly-talented" female engineers. So, four in the past four centuries?

              Sounds about right! :-P
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  Mimi 5 years, 8 months ago
                You have kind of got a point there. Voltaire’s mistress, Emilie du Chalet claim to fame was translating Newton's Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica into french. She was a brilliant mathematician, but had she been a man, we wouldn’t care if she understood someone else’s work and translated it.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  MikeMarotta 5 years, 8 months ago
              Other female actor/scientists include Felicia Day, Natalie Portman, Mayim Bialik, and Danika McKellar.

              The 9th of December was Grace Hopper's birthday, if you missed the Google doodle.

              In the documentary "Something Ventured" about the financial successes in Silicon Valley is the story of Sandra Lerner of Cisco Systems.
              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 BambiB 5 years, 8 months ago
                Hopper? The mother of COBOL? One of my first CoSci courses we looked at the design objectives for COBOL. There were something like nine of them. AIR COBOL actually failed all but two, and was questionable on one of the two. Not much of an accomplishment.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by  $  MikeMarotta 5 years, 8 months ago
                  Thumbs down again. What succeeded the first time? And who is the proto-Objectivist with no taint of guilt? Robert Fulton petitioned for a MONOPOLY... which Cornelius Vanderbilt broke (not that he was worthy of a place in Atlas Shrugged). In order to understand what the Gulch is all about, you need to integrate the context of the present discussion with the essential distinguishing characteristics of objective reality in the human sphere.
                  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 BambiB 5 years, 8 months ago
                    Horse hockey.

                    Apply that logic to a building. It has to be 15 stories tall. It has to have a base of 100'x100'. It has to contain 120 apartments with 1000 sq ft of living space. It has to withstand a 60mph wind and a 6.0 earthquake.

                    That's just six design objectives. Suppose the building only meets half of the design objectives. Would you pay for it? Would you live in it? Or would you consider it a FAILURE?

                    COBOL came out at the end of 1959. FORTRAN was available in 1957, and did a better job of meeting its design objectives than did the female-led COBOL project.

                    It seems that women need only be mediocre to gain more fame than men who do a better job. Reminds me of the old saw about the talking dog - It matters not that she's no master of elocution. The wonder is she can talk at all.

                    Hopper led a team and produced crap. What man led the FORTRAN team that developed a better language? No one remembers. Why is that? Could it be because men are expected to be able to do the job, and so when they do, it's not important? But women are expected to be failures and so any success at all (even if it's only a 78% failure) brings Hopper-level laurels?

                    Here's one for you: Who was the Navy's first carrier-based female fighter pilot and why doesn't she receive the same accolades as Hopper? Do YOU know her name (without looking it up)?

                    One question about the most famous female scientist, Curie… If she knew so much about radioactivity, why did she kill herself with it? Did she do it on purpose? Or out of ignorance?

                    Not taking anything away from her (co-) discovery of radiation (along with her husband and Becquerel), but it seems odd that one of the discoverers of radiation would accidentally poison herself… with radiation.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  minniepuck 5 years, 8 months ago
                since when is Natalie Portman a scientist?
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by  $  MikeMarotta 5 years, 8 months ago
                  Minniepuck: ... what you don't know...
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by  $  minniepuck 5 years, 8 months ago
                    I know about her research papers and their publication in scientific journals. I like her. I know her background and have kept up with her career. I just was not aware that being published in a journal made someone an expert and therefore a scientist. our definition of "scientist" must be different, which is fine, but not something I care to discuss any further. differing definitions seem to be the basis of a lot of argument around here. hence my question. I didn't learn anything new about Portman today, but I did of you. thanks for the education.
                    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 BambiB 5 years, 8 months ago
                  Since she wrote two papers.

                  Apparently the bar for female scientists is even lower than I thought.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by  $  MikeMarotta 5 years, 8 months ago
                    Thumbs down.
                    She was in HIGH SCHOOL when she co-authored a peer-reviewed paper. What did YOU achieve in high school?

                    Either you recognize achievement, or you do not. I was open to some of your earlier quips and insights, but you have revealed yourself to be just another conservative, locked in to concretes and floating abstactions: rocks and clouds; and no element of human (rational) reality.
                    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 BambiB 5 years, 8 months ago
                      Yes. She was in high school.

                      So a high school student who gets two papers published is the bar for being a female scientist? Like I said: Low bar.

                      Hey, don't get me wrong. I like Natalie Portman. I thought she was cool in "The Professional" (BEFORE she became a "scientist"). I also enjoyed her in The Other Boleyn Girl and V for Vendetta. She was sort of furniture in the Star Wars movies. I REALLY liked her SNL interview. http://vimeo.com/51268555 But if two papers written in high school is all it takes to be a "scientist"...

                      I'll send you the bill for my dry cleaning.
                      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  $  Maphesdus 5 years, 8 months ago
                        I don't think getting two papers published WHILE STILL IN HIGH SCHOOL is a low bar at all. Seriously, how many men have achieved something like that at that age?
                        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 BambiB 5 years, 8 months ago
                          So you're saying if someone does something a couple years ahead of the norm, that qualifies them as a scientist? Or that if a couple of adults decide to put a younger friend's name on their paper, that makes their younger friend a scientist? (You will note, she didn't author the papers… she CO-authored them.)

                          Wait, I had a younger brother who could name 3/4 of the countries of the world by the age of two. Applying your logic, he's at the very least a geographer. I mean, YOU can't name 3/4 of the countries of the world and you're an adult! (Do YOU know where Bechuanaland
                          is/was? My little brother did.) Given that he was doing something at age 2 that most adults cannot do in their lifetimes, ever, and he did so at such a young age (we're talking 12 years younger than Portman when she entered high school), he must be the world's pre-eminent geographer of all time!

                          But wait! It gets better!

                          He knew how to play chess at age 2. Now he wasn't very good, but since no mention was ever made of the quality or importance of Portman's two papers, we know that doesn't matter. Playing chess at age 2! Wow! I bet you want to confer on him the title of Eternal Holy Super-Duper Intergalactic Grand-Master Wizard of Chess!

                          Take Ben Swann (benswann.com). The guy completed his MASTERS DEGREE in history at an age when Portman was still in high school. Now that's exceptional, but applying your logic, he should be the Supreme Grand Swami of Inter-dimensional History because he completed that course of study 10 years ahead of his peers.

                          Doing something earlier than peers is a sign of greater ability or intelligence or the like - but it scarcely qualifies you in a field.

                          By the way, I've read portions of both papers (one of which was actually published while she was in college). I'm not saying they're bad papers - but there's nothing earth-shaking in either one. In fact, the first seems to be more of an argument that enzymatic reactions should be taught in high school. The second is a sort of soft-science psychology paper about development in babies.

                          Frankly, if it's true, I'm far more impressed by her reputed ability to speak 5 different languages. (Oh wait - Five languages? Does that make her the Extra-Special Universally-renown triple-extra expert on Languages?)

                          Hot? Intelligent? Talented? Absolutely!
                          Scientist? Not so much.

                          Put it this way, if Natalie Portman is the standard for female scientists, there are no female scientists.
                          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 5 years, 8 months ago
              That's "Hedley".
              Madame Curie wasn't an engineer, was she?
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by khalling 5 years, 8 months ago
                Hedy.
                thanks for the correction. chemist or engineer-both hard sciences, let's not split hairs
                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 5 years, 8 months ago
                  Doh...

                  Blazing Saddles reference, khalling....

                  Harvey Korman... "That's Hedley... Hedley Lamarr"

                  Is engineering a science?
                  Don't get me wrong, if I had it to do over again I'd get myself a degree in mechanical engineering. But I never thought of it as 'science'. More like applied science as opposed to theoretical, I guess.
                  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 BambiB 5 years, 8 months ago
                  No, let's not split hairs. Just because there are so few quality female engineers that you have to poach candidates from other realms...
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by khalling 5 years, 8 months ago
                    western societys and cultures have held women back until the turn of the last century so don't be all high and mighty on me. My husband got a job offer from Bell Labs and instead took a job with McDonnell Douglas. He didn't want to live on the east coast. I think he somewhat regrets that 1st out of college job decision, but it was more consistent with his recreational life. what kind of engineer are you?
                    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 5 years, 8 months ago
                      "western societys and cultures have held women back until the turn of the last century"

                      Don't think you want to go there.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by khalling 5 years, 8 months ago
                        here's my good friend Henry Adams on women in college in 1885:
                        Henry Adams, writing about women’s intellectual ambitions for higher education, commented on “...the pathetic impossibility of improving those poor little, hard, thin, wiry, one-stringed instruments which they call their minds.”he complained bitterly in a letter of protest to the American Historical Association when he found a woman historian listed in the program of a AHA meeting.
                        There was a genuine fear that a good education would make a women unfit for marriage and motherhood. And in fact, 50-60% of the first generation of college women did not marry or significantly delayed marriage."
                        .7% of American woman in 1870 and 7% by 1920. first US college to allow women 1833 Oberlin. 1st state to allow women patent rights was New York in 1845 only if they were married. Many states did not STILL allow women to own property. There was definitely a social stigma on women going to college. heard the term bluestocking? went there
                        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 5 years, 8 months ago
                          "There was a genuine fear that a good education would make a women unfit for marriage and motherhood."

                          Interesting prediction. What other ones appear to have come true?

                          You went there. Now explain to me how women were "held back"? WITHOUT using the feminazi definition of equality that women have to do everything that men do the way men do it and want everything men want the way men want it in order to be equal.

                          Btw.. famous alum of Oberlin... Michelle Malkin.


                          Now cite the percentage of American men who went to college in those eras, and of those, the percentage who achieved degrees.

                          It was only quite recently that everyone was *expected* to go to college, just as it was only in my generation that everyone was expected to graduate high school. Of course, now you *need* a college degree in order to get a decent junior high education...
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by khalling 5 years, 8 months ago
                            you'll have to look up the men stats yourself. I'm not that interested.
                            1. Women could not hold property until mid 1800s and then only SOME states recognized it. Women could not initiate divorce. My grandmother divorced in 1925 in Iowa. Her husband wanted to marry another woman. She had a baby at the time. Since she was not granted any property rights in the farm through marriage, the court determined she could not financially care for her son. Her ex was also awarded full custody of their young son. He kept all the property including their child.
                            I am in agreement on a current college education but there were (are) laws in place regarding certain professions including engineers. You went to college to become one. So the pool of women engineers in the US is relatively new compared to me. that was my point. I'm not trying to make the case that women should get a break because of it, just that it may be a reason bambib and others have not considered.
                            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 5 years, 8 months ago
                              I wasn't interested in breastbeating over women being "held back" by men, but I had it inflicted upon me anyway.

                              I repeat, women can't hold property today, in some states. But, I believe they are able to in all 50 States.

                              Only one baby? My maternal grandmother had her 12th baby in Muscatine in 1931 (my mother)... and my maternal grandfather was, as my mother would say, "a rounder".

                              I don't know when my father's parents were divorced, but I do know it led to my father having a miserable childhood, as his mother and stepmother both were of the opinion that men existed to do for women, and taught his sisters the same.
                              (Irony; my eldest brother, named for my paternal grandfather, ended up with an eldest son in the same boat, because he let his worthless psychology major wife teach his equally worthless two daughters than men existed as servants to women).

                              I can't speak for the desirability of a college education, but my own mother developed a wide variety of skills in her efforts to provide for her children on the modest income available to an honest man; teacher, painter, upholsterer, seamstress & tailor, caterer, chef, gardener, interior decorator., political activist (she got Reagan a victory in the Story City caucus in 1980 by her efforts... yes, the same infamous caucus that was so slow in getting its results last election, and she did it in spite of every dirty trick the Bush campaign pulled...); she was the only one in her family to graduate high school, and never felt the desire for a college degree. Her expressed feelings toward men wasn't subjugation, oppression, or envy; it was pity, mostly.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Posted by khalling 5 years, 8 months ago
                                did you ding me?
                                interesting story-your mom was quite interesting.
                                I am in complete agreement about the cultural trend to dominate males. It starts in preschool now. give them a pill if they become "unmangaeable" aka just being a boy.
                                But a man has the ability not to fall into second hander mode. He can choose not to comply with silly social conventions.
                                My grandmother had 4 children that lived. This is kinda interesting. So the guy who divorced my mom for another woman-she also had a young son (with my grandfather). He got full custody as well, but allowed her to keep their son. Somehow, he and my grandmother came together and married. their first child was my dad. Who a few years later was the first child to receive antibiotics for scarlet fever in Iowa. They were brought by plane from Chicago and the plane landed in a field near the town where my grandparents lived-Mt. Union. anyway, I have often wondered if they married as a way to see their first borns often. Although both gone now, Uncle Jack and Uncle Jim were my only uncles and much beloved.
                                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 5 years, 8 months ago
        I didn't know Bill Cosby was a sports figure.

        Well, I guess he did play a tennis pro in "I Spy".

        Of course, Levar Burton was probably some kind of sports figure, before making "Roots" and "Star Drek: the Next Germination"
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Danno 5 years, 8 months ago
    This woman is a little off: 80/20 law still applies meaning that 20% of population will support a "Rascist" biz, etc. That's Nature. Please don't look to Youtube for Knowledge.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Danno 5 years, 8 months ago
    A private business should be able to run its biz however it likes as long as it does no harm. Refusing service when other alternatives exist is not harm.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by j_IR1776wg 5 years, 8 months ago
    The essential question which has bedeviled societies for the last 8000 years is whether the individual should be allowed to own and control his property in an absolute manner or whether the collective owns and controls all property in an absolute manner. The founding fathers in America chose a middle ground to limit the collective's ability to control via the Bill of Rights.

    The limits lasted for about 100 years. Since then the collective began to exercise its strength by seizing or controlling private and commercial property via the Sherman Anti-trust Act, the income tax amendment, Anti-discrimination laws, Patriot Act, Kelo v New London amongst others.

    Hence the mess we are now dealing with in Colorado comes down to whether one believes Jack Phillips the bakery owner has an absolute right to control his property or if the collective has that right. One can be an Individualist or a Collectivist but trying to be both is an impossibility.
    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  $  Maphesdus 5 years, 8 months ago
      "One can be an Individualist or a Collectivist but trying to be both is an impossibility."
      ---
      That's not true at all. It's entirely possible to recognize that individualism and collectivism both have legitimate places in society. The problem with Communism was that they tried to say only collectivism was valid, and that individualism should be eliminated. Now we can certainly say that is evil, but simply taking the exact opposite stance and saying that only individualism is valid, and that collectivism should be eliminated would likely have similar results.The claim that collectivism is inherently evil has lead many Objectivists to conclude that teamwork is evil, because teamwork is a form of collectivism. Pretty much every large corporation operates on collectivist principles. Would you eliminate every big business for the sake of preserving only the individually operated small businesses?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by j_IR1776wg 5 years, 8 months ago
        " It's entirely possible to recognize that individualism and collectivism both have legitimate places in society."

        Any attempt to compromise between a thief and a victim always ends badly for the victim.

        "The claim that collectivism is inherently evil has lead many Objectivists to conclude that teamwork is evil, because teamwork is a form of collectivism."

        So the 16th Amendment was teamwork? Or was it outright theft of our incomes?

        "Pretty much every large corporation operates on collectivist principles. Would you eliminate every big business for the sake of preserving only the individually operated small businesses?"

        Private owned corporations, large or small, cannot fine or jail you for not buying their products.Only government enjoys that privilege..
        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  $  Maphesdus 5 years, 8 months ago
          The 16th Amendment was about taxes, and did not address either collectivism or individualism. And the inability of corporations to fine or jail the public is beside the point, which was whether collectivism ever has any legitimate place in society. I think it does. There are pros and cons to both individualism and collectivism, and a stable society will need to utilize both in order to attain and maintain prosperity. Choosing either one to the absolute exclusion of the other leads to disaster.

          Asking whether one should choose collectivism or individualism to achieve prosperity is like asking whether an airplane needs a left wing or a right wing in order to fly straight. Clearly both are needed.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by j_IR1776wg 5 years, 8 months ago
            "The 16th Amendment was about taxes, and did not address either collectivism or individualism."

            Text of the 16th Amendment:

            "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
            Taxation without limits is precisely about individualism and collectivism. Indeed, in the 1950s the top marginal rate was 90%. The income of individuals belonged to the collective and the collective "allowed" top earners to keep 10%.
            In 2011 or 2012, the British equivalent of our IRS proposed that all checks for employee income be sent directly to the government and the government would electronically deposit into citizen's accounts an amount the government deemed necessary for the citizen to survive.
            .
            If you think these two examples do not express individualism versus collectivism, we live on two different planets.
            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 5 years, 8 months ago
            No, it's like asking whether the pilot should direct the plane, or whether a vote should be taken on every course correction.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 5 years, 8 months ago
    I agree with her, but her style is freaky. I couldn't get through the whole thing.

    Thinking ahead to 2014, I can't imagine doing my plans trying to make more money and trying to discriminate against certain customers. I just want more customers. I find it amazing that some businesses feel like they can reject good customers for political reasons.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  minniepuck 5 years, 8 months ago
      her target audience is younger folks. she thinks a lot about her delivery and format of her videos; I don't think it's her just slamming back mountain dew. she's done presentations about her videos before either independently or on behalf of freedomworks. I like that she gets her point across succinctly. she's also a libertarian - - for me that's a plus.

      anyway, I'm like you thinking of the new year. I couldn't imagine turning away any customer, but I know others that do. that's fine with me. I think they're idiots, but at least they're free idiots. if they don't want their business, I'll gladly try to earn it instead. I'm perfectly fine allowing the market--but only the market--to bankrupt a business they don't agree with for whatever reason, whether it's run by a racist or bigot, or because they sell crap.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Scatcatpdx 5 years, 8 months ago
    I think you're missing the big picture The issue is can a person should have the First Amendment freedom of religions to run a private business according to their believes Let me put it this way, Why is right for people to force a Christian to bake Gay person a Wedding cake, but not to force a Jewish deli to sell me a pork sausage, force a Muslim restaurant to sell me a beer or an Indian restaurant to sell beef curry.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 5 years, 8 months ago
    I love this woman! She is dead on and completely right. She makes her points directly and well and with a sense of humor. You can't beat that.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by vido 5 years, 8 months ago
    Freedom of commerce includes freedom to chose one's clients. The only problem there, was that homosexual couple were seeking to impose their lifestyle onto others, who would just ignore them otherwise, and made a fuss about being denied a transaction, as if they were entitled not only to the merchandise, but also to the enthusiasm of the baker.
    Now where this is becoming a concern, is that they had the state intervene to force the baker to provide them with a service against his will, in effect making him a slave.
    I'm pretty sure that there has to be at least a few other bakers around there who would have been happy to sell their craft to that couple, but no, they wanted to drag that one into submission, for obvious double PC propaganda purposes ("can't refuse commerce with a gay", as well as "you are not free to chose your clients").
    I wonder if the baker is considering going Galt over that charade...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Stormi 5 years, 8 months ago
    I agree with the premise of her presentation about laws not making the changes in society, but her presentation was completely a turn off - almost Valley Girl.
    Respect changes culture. Growing up with the only TV on the block in Ohio, I was used to then Negro neighbors on our couch, Italians, and even the gay guy from up the street. Guess what, everyone got along. My dad was a big band musician who respected black musicians for their abilities and thought of them as friends. He was unprejudiced enough to call them on a stupid act, as you would any friend. The gay neighbor was a fantastic photographer, and recorded most of my childhood moments.This kind of trust and respect cannot be legislated, period. When Sinatra insisted on treatment for Sammy Davis after his car accident, that was the act of a friend, which sent a message no legislation could send.
    When politicians and courts get involved, things get out of hand, turn to reverse discrimination, and further divide people. Just because you abide by a law against some act, does not mean you respect the person. If you sell to someone you disrespect, it may be lawful and make you money, but you have not changed inside. Knowing and being able to respect people, or disrespect them, regardless of race, but based on merit, is the only true way to end discrimination. How many immigrants have been caught in the trap of federal hiring laws, when they are forced to hire outside their family, costing them more for labor, A family goal then becomes a money drain. But we all know that is NOT the goal of the Marxists, who depend on division to implement policy, is control.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Dargo 5 years, 8 months ago
    What government gives, they can take away. The problem is the courts. You get enough people yelling and the courts go along with the loudest person, in this case it was the ACLU.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by DaveM49 5 years, 8 months ago
    It is not rational to "discriminate" against any group of people, with the possible exception of a group that is reasonably perceived as being a potential threat to person, property, etc. That said, it is not unlawful to be irrational (unfortunately). Many anti-discrimination laws are an attempt to legislate thinking. It can't be done.
    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  $  Maphesdus 5 years, 8 months ago
    Totally disagree. She makes several baseless assumptions and makes many false claims that demonstrate she has no clue how discrimination actually works.

    Racist/Prejudiced businesses would go bankrupt.
    ** There is no evidence to support this theory. It is pure, baseless speculation. The claim that the entire populace would be so outraged that they would refuse to buy anything from the business is a theory with no factual evidence behind it. A certain percentage of the population would be enraged enough to boycott the business, sure, but the masses would probably largely be indifferent, and the bottom line of the business would not be negatively impacted. In some cases, being racist or prejudiced could actually make a business MORE profitable, if the general population is racist as well. A restaurant in Orange County, California that didn't serve black people would find no shortage of customers.

    Speaking of the baseless assumption that discrimination automatically leads to bankruptcy, a few months ago I saw a story about a lesbian couple that was turned away when they tried to buy a wedding cake at a particular bakery (exact same situation as was being discussed in the previous topic, but a different bakery and a different couple). When word got out that the bakery had discriminated against the couple, the bakery's customer base increased by quite a bit. There were so many bigoted, homophobic people in that area that the bakery's discrimination was seen as a positive by the general population, and helped to increase the owner's revenues. The lesson? The free market does NOT, in fact, eliminate discrimination automatically.

    Law doesn't change culture.
    ** This is totally untrue. Law has a tremendous impact on culture. Anything which is illegal is stigmatized as evil. Most people make no distinction between legality and morality, and they base their views of the second on the status of the first. A big reason racism was so bad before before the Civil Rights Movement was because it was legally required and enforced by law. If you give something a legal sanction, you give it a moral sanction, and thereby allow it to flourish. Legality and morality cannot be separated in the eye of the public.

    No body should be forced to provide a service for another person.
    ** Actually, if they're a business owner and they're providing service to the general public, yes they should. A business owner can control almost every aspect of his business, but he cannot choose his customers. As for the hypothetical example she uses at the end where members of the Westboro Baptist Church come into a business owned by a gay person and the gay business owner has to provide them service, I suppose yeah, he would. Religion is, after all, a legally protected status under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But if that's the price for equality, then so be it.

    Now keep in mind that although the gay business owner could not kick them out simply because they're members of the Westboro Baptist Church, he COULD kick them out if they started shouting, causing a ruckus, and/or harassing other customers. There is no legal protection for disruptive behavior.

    She says that a better plan is to change the culture and make it more accepting of diverse people, but what she fails to realize is that the fact that bigoted business owners have to keep the their bigotry a secret is proof that such change has already occurred. It shows that such views are not accepted.

    Ultimately, eliminating bigotry is not possible, so instead we have to settle for creating a society in which it is stigmatized and punished. That's the only way to keep it under control.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by khalling 5 years, 8 months ago
      Jack Phillips, the owner of Lakewood's Masterpiece Cakeshop, told local CBS affilate KCNC-TV that he has no problem with lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT) customers or staff members -- but nonetheless does not support gay marriage.

      "If it came to that point, we would close down the bakery before we would compromise our beliefs, so that may be what it comes to," Phillips said. "We'll see."

      Phillips, who said he also rejected another same-sex couple's request for a wedding cake earlier this year, continued, "If gays come in and want to order birthday cakes or any cakes for any occasion, graduations, or whatever, I have no prejudice against that whatsoever. It's just the wedding cake -- not the people, not their lifestyle."-HuffPost, Gay Voices,12/15
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  MikeMarotta 5 years, 8 months ago
      I disagree with your line of reasoning on the LAWS, but I do agree with you on you observations about CULTURE.

      "A restaurant in Orange County, California that didn't serve black people would find no shortage of customers. ... a story about a lesbian couple that was turned away when they tried to buy a wedding cake ... the bakery's customer base increased by quite a bit."

      Chick Fil A - even here in Austin, the most liberal city in Texas (or the ONLY liberal city in Texas), they are doing well despite or because of their homophobia.

      The way that business works against discrimination is precisely in the ANONYMITY
      of commerce: everyone's money is green. Remove that, and people can choose on any ground, rational or not.

      I point out also that Orange County is SUBURBAN, not urban. In the city, irrational discrimination is less salient because cities bring together so many different kinds of people. We do still get these incidents over housing and neighborhood in NYC, Boston, etc., true enough, but in daily commerce, it just is not practical. The KKK was marching in Washington DC with their hoods off, at the same time as the Harlem Renaissance. Tap dance was invented when Irish gangs and Colored gangs in Five Points mixed their styles on the street corners. Cities do that.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by khalling 5 years, 8 months ago
        cities also tend to pass more regulatory laws that keep immigrants from starting their own businesses out of a car on the street corner. What about Mayor Emmanuel telling Chick Fil A not to have stores in HIS tolerant urban center? . what's with the evil suburbia vs benevolent city reasoning? you can find bigotry anywhere-why do you think cities tend to fall out geographically by culture-chinatown to little havana? what about the moslems who killed the soldier right in the middle of a benevolent city city street in London? In suburbia it's just town. Have you spent much time in suburbia? Because I have lived in different suburban neighborhoods most of my adult life and this bigotry label you want to make by association I find to be highly inaccurate and somewhat insulting.
        Owners of companies are allowed to have opinions. People feel personally about what the word marriage means-that is not bigotry. If there is any correlation to Chick fil a's sales increasing during the time they were in the news for the owner's views, have you considered the publicity itself increased front of mind about a restaurant you hadn't been to recently? why jump to the conclusion it was about supporting a a political agenda? In the case of the bakery, they closed their business due to numerous death threats, vandalism and time and money over the court case. I did not read their business increased over the case which was publicized by the gay couple not the baker btw.
        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 5 years, 8 months ago
      "Law doesn't change culture.
      ** This is totally untrue. Law has a tremendous impact on culture. Anything which is illegal is stigmatized as evil."

      One word: Prohibition.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by LetsShrug 5 years, 8 months ago
      I don't think anti discrimination laws changes culture...I think it will just force some to keep their opinions in the closet... but luckily the closets are now empty to there's room for them. (I wonder when the opinions will ban together and pass a law so they can get out of the closet too....oh wait! WE ALREADY HAVE THAT ONE...it's the First Amendment!)
      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  $  Maphesdus 5 years, 8 months ago
        People can certainly express bigoted opinions if they want. There is no law restricting that. They just can't behave in a bigoted manner while running a business. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech, not freedom of action. Every government in the history of mankind has always placed legal limitations on the actions a citizen may engage in. The United States is no exception.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by LetsShrug 5 years, 8 months ago
          So when a person starts a business they suddenly don't own themselves any longer and they become chattel for the States (and their customers) to dictate if they can exercise their opinions and beliefs and whether or not they have a choice in who their efforts benefit???? THAT is NOT freedom, Maph.
          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  $  Maphesdus 5 years, 8 months ago
            It is necessary to have regulations which impose certain restrictions on business. Obviously having too many regulations or regulations which are bad could have a negative impact on a business, but having no regulations at all would have a seriously detrimental impact on the general public. A balance needs to be struck. Men must be protected not only from their government, but from their fellow citizens as well.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by khalling 5 years, 8 months ago
              you discriminate against business. have you ever walked in a business owner's shoes? You vilify them as a group often in here. it's hurtful actually. sniff
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by LetsShrug 5 years, 8 months ago
                I've told Maph before...until you own a business you won't understand. I'm sure there are people in the world that he would not serve based on principle also....he just can't let himself go there because it's not reality for him...it's still fantasy at this point.
                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 5 years, 8 months ago
          The United States should be an exception. Hence "American exceptionalism".

          As every government in the history of mankind does this, I'm sure you'll have no problem finding a totalitarian state that suits you, no need to make one here.
          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  $  Maphesdus 5 years, 8 months ago
            If your definition of "totalitarian state" is any state which passes laws and regulations, then I'm afraid there has never been a non-totalitarian state in the history of mankind. Clearly a different definition is needed, otherwise we'll never be able to correctly recognize TRUE totalitarianism.
            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 5 years, 8 months ago
              If your definition of "marshmallow" is anything that's squishy on the inside... Here, have a raspberry jelly doughnut.

              You should read what I said. I said you should have no trouble finding a totalitarian state that suits you. There are plenty of totalitarian states, and your rhetoric indicates that that is your preferred form of government.

              Government by dictate, not consent.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo