|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On December 06 2017 02:35 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 02:22 kollin wrote:
Western culture is a product of capitalism, and the fact other countries adopt it is more of an example of the power of capital in transforming them than the strength of Western values overwhelming them. You have it backwards. Capitalism is a product of Western culture. There's a reason why capitalism did not emerge until the later stages of the Enlightenment.
Capitalism is pre-Enlightenment - it first emerged in the 16th century, I would argue.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Early-Islam-Capitalism-Benedikt-Koehler/dp/0739188828
If this guy is correct, of course, then I eagerly await your conversion to Islam.
|
You got to help me out here xdaunt, because everything you write sounds like a troll attempt. They can't be your actual thoughts can they? Do you really think that the counterpart to western culture is Muslim culture? How can anyone possibly think that non-western = Muslim? That maybe just maybe a regional description cannot be compared with a religious description? Granted that Western culture is a somewhat woolly concept, but I don't understand how someone cannot understand that non-western culture and Muslim culture would be two totally different things. We are literally communicating in a website rooted in korean broodwar, yet the idea of Eastern cultures, or anything outside americanised culture seems entirely foreign to you. There is a whole host of other cultures out there, so if you aren't trolling, please just open your eyes a little and recognise that there is more to the world than this western or "muslim" culture.
|
On December 06 2017 02:13 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 02:07 Excludos wrote:On December 06 2017 01:59 Mohdoo wrote:
I think it is fair to point out that within the US, the removal of any single sub-culture, such as Thai, Vietnamese, Syrian, Iranian, Mexican, Peruvian, Japanese...etc...Removing any one of them would really not be too big a cultural hit just because of how many other components get tossed into our melting pot. The idea that we could just skip one of them because it is a little more disruptive than the others isn't entirely crazy.
If, for example, we were to start slowly phasing out Peruvians as American citizens, the country would do just fine. There's a saying for exactly this you know. "First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me." Sure it's a slippery slope argument, but it is also equally valid. You can't go after only one subculture "because I don't like them and I'm not in it", because the very next time you are. Yeah, I understand this. But if I may use a crude example: Pitbulls. Many apartment complexes ban pitbulls because, whether it is the "fault" of the dogs themselves or the owners or the abusive past or whatever bullshit, they are riskier animals to have on your property. We have not ended up in a situation where people can only have dogs under 10 pounds. Sometimes, there really is a specific group that is more problematic than others and we should be open to the possibility that squishing their numbers down a bit would be a good thing, despite our knee-jerk reaction from learning about racism in high school. The idea that every single culture is totally justifiable and could never be a net negative is just as braindead as thinking every single person in a given group is bad. We should be able to address this kind of thing on an individual basis and not panic every time it becomes clear it would take rigorous analysis. I am by no means saying this actually is the case for Muslims. I haven't taken the time to learn if it is. I am not even qualified to make that determination. But I am saying cultures can be downright conflicting.
Bulldogs are a terrible example. Apartment complexes have a ban on bulldogs because of a stigma attached to them. The same way people are going "Fuck the Muslims cause I don't want to get exploded by ISIS." and "Fuck the gays, because I don't want my poop getting pushed in."
|
The worst part by far for the State was when Kennedy said "tolerance is a two way street." That may end up summing up the whole decision.
Either way I'm afraid the outcome of this case will cause a bunch of fools to push its limits. If the Cake shop wins, expect signs in windows about who businesses won't serve as what constitutes an "artist" is stretched to its limit.
If the State wins, expect a bunch of absurd requests being made (like the KKK cake from a black run cake shop) just to piss people off.
Imo the court rules in favor of the cake shop but tries to provide a super limiting principle on what is speech for businesses (Gorsuch asked about this a few times like he was trying to dampen the damage he knows his decision will bring).
|
United States42005 Posts
On December 06 2017 02:39 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 02:35 xDaunt wrote:On December 06 2017 02:22 kollin wrote:
Western culture is a product of capitalism, and the fact other countries adopt it is more of an example of the power of capital in transforming them than the strength of Western values overwhelming them. You have it backwards. Capitalism is a product of Western culture. There's a reason why capitalism did not emerge until the later stages of the Enlightenment. Capitalism is pre-Enlightenment - it first emerged in the 16th century, I would argue. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Early-Islam-Capitalism-Benedikt-Koehler/dp/0739188828If this guy is correct, of course, then I eagerly await your conversion to Islam.
Islam is expressly non capitalist (in the sense of an actual capitalist class) because it forbids interest as the creation of something from nothing. Islamic banking is actually quite interesting in terms of the mechanisms by which they get around all of that.
Obviously supply and demand and trade were hugely important within the Islamic world, as they were everywhere else. But the emergence of a capitalist class who invested wealth into the ventures of others seeking returns, and related industries such as banking etc, is contrary to the Koran.
The Bible takes almost exactly the same issues with all that stuff too but nobody actually reads the Bible so we're good.
That said, the book you linked from an actual historian almost certainly knows far more than my cursory knowledge of Islamic banking.
|
United States42005 Posts
On December 06 2017 02:45 On_Slaught wrote:
The worst part by far for the State was when Kennedy said "tolerance is a two way street." That may end up summing up the whole decision.
Either way I'm afraid the outcome of this case will cause a bunch of fools to push its limits. If the Cake shop wins, expect signs in windows about who businesses won't serve as what constitutes an "artist" is stretched to its limit.
If the State wins, expect a bunch of absurd requests being made (like the KKK cake from a black run cake shop) just to piss people off.
Imo the court rules in favor of the cake shop but tries to provide a super limiting principle on what is speech for businesses (Gorsuch asked about this a few times like he was trying to dampen the damage he knows his decision will bring).
Refusing to make a KKK cake surely cannot be seen as discriminating against a protected class. You wouldn't be refusing to make the cake because you don't serve white customers. And until Sessions finally gets his way the KKK is not a protected class.
|
On December 06 2017 02:39 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +Justice Kennedy is back, raising deep concerns about comments made by one commissioner on the Colorado Civil Rights Commission who said it was “one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric” for people to use their religion to hurt others. The justice makes clear he’s troubled by the statement and asks if the state disavows it.
Mr. Yarger said he wouldn’t counsel a client to make a statement like that. Pressed further by Justice Kennedy, he then says, yes, he disavows it.
Justice Kennedy and Justice Gorsuch then go on to ask what the court should do with the case if it believed at least some members of the state civil rights commission had demonstrated hostility toward religion.
Mr. Yarger said the commission was not in fact hostile to religion. Show nested quote +Justice Alito continued to poke at Colorado’s insistence that all would be well if Mr. Phillips simply provided an identical product--such as the same cake with the same words--without regard to characteristics the state protects from discrimination. What if one couple ordered a cake celebrating its anniversary, with icing that read something like, “Nov. 9 is the greatest day in history.” And then someone else came in and ordered the identical cake, explaining, “We’re going to have a party to celebrate Kristallnacht”--the Nazi pogrom that began Nov. 9, 1938, marking a major step toward the Holocaust. Show nested quote +A quick headline here: Colorado is having difficulties in defending how it applied its public accommodations law to the baker.
Justice Anthony Kennedy told a lawyer for the state that tolerance is essential in a free society, but it’s important for tolerance to work in both directions. “It seems to me the state has been neither tolerant or respectful” of the baker’s views, he said. WSJ Live CoverageJust as a reminder to folks like Logo that the message presented and the discrimination on the basis of it is front and center in several justice's minds. It's not, as previously argued, some obvious exception that can't really be called discrimination at all. The wrapups in paragraph form are very long, so I suggest interested parties to head to the link if they want more.
If Kennedy is asking those questions, then the cake shop is going to win. And it's clear that he, like Danglars and me, is concerned with this idea of the government deciding what speech is acceptable. I wonder if he'll also join with the other conservatives on the free exercise issue. This could be a 5-4 decision on free speech and a 4-5 on free exercise.
|
On December 06 2017 02:48 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 02:45 On_Slaught wrote:
The worst part by far for the State was when Kennedy said "tolerance is a two way street." That may end up summing up the whole decision.
Either way I'm afraid the outcome of this case will cause a bunch of fools to push its limits. If the Cake shop wins, expect signs in windows about who businesses won't serve as what constitutes an "artist" is stretched to its limit.
If the State wins, expect a bunch of absurd requests being made (like the KKK cake from a black run cake shop) just to piss people off.
Imo the court rules in favor of the cake shop but tries to provide a super limiting principle on what is speech for businesses (Gorsuch asked about this a few times like he was trying to dampen the damage he knows his decision will bring). Refusing to make a KKK cake surely cannot be seen as discriminating against a protected class. You wouldn't be refusing to make the cake because you don't serve white customers. And until Sessions finally gets his way the KKK is not a protected class.
Tell that to the Solicitor General who literally used this example (with a cross instead of a cake) in arguments today.
My point is just that regardless of the outcome, we will see a bunch of unpleasant future litigation as people probe the limits in either direction. Given the nature of the subject, i expect it will get especially ugly.
|
On December 06 2017 02:14 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 02:07 Sermokala wrote:On December 06 2017 01:58 NewSunshine wrote:On December 06 2017 01:51 Sermokala wrote:On December 06 2017 01:36 Nebuchad wrote:On December 06 2017 00:56 Sermokala wrote:On December 06 2017 00:51 NewSunshine wrote:On December 06 2017 00:46 LegalLord wrote:On December 06 2017 00:34 NewSunshine wrote:On December 06 2017 00:24 LegalLord wrote:
[quote]
Holy shit that is about the most disingenuous false equivalency I’ve seen around here in months. Few people even take that “culture total war” view and the only one who seems to prominently do so (xDaunt) has said in the past things like “opposing gay rights doesn’t mean we want to murder them in the streets” (in response to Orlando or some Trump speech on it, I don’t remember). That’s about as good a comparison as saying, “you’re an evil person, why don’t you worship Darkseid and Palpatine and work on building a world in their style?” I mean, is anyone legitimately wondering why people don't take well to "Well, I consider gays to be basically insects, but I'm not gonna go around stomping on them for fun"? Does that really deserve the charity required for nuance at that point? No, there is no surprise that people known for hyperbole and “if you don’t take my political view on certain issues then you’re evil and not my friend” stances make utterly reductionist comparisons without even thinking that it might be a bit over the line. It’s all for the greater good (which at this point seems to be “doing anything and everything to stop Trump no matter the cost”) so of course said people won’t have any room for nuance or for thinking it might be over the line. Most people I know who oppose gay marriage don’t consider gays to be “basically insects.” Some could even be convinced to support the idea even if they don’t particularly like it. I don’t agree with them on that issue but it’s perhaps worth taking a look in a mirror and seeing that you are more responsible than they are for that perception. If I have a discussion with someone wherein I learn they oppose gay rights, and they double down on it because I said some not nice things to them, that is their problem, not mine. The problem to begin with is the other person not treating gay people like human beings. The fact that they're not happy being called out on it is not my fucking problem. And people like you wonder why the nation is polarized as ever. Your attitude on things like this is exactly why we're in the situation we're in right now. You don't even presume to want to make the world better or change peoples views you just want to treat people worse because you disagree with them. On December 06 2017 00:56 brian wrote:
is there a line between disrespecting the human rights of people and being evil? are we looking to set up some sort of 1-10 evil scale and decide where in the line ‘true evil’ starts? Do you think the only reason why people oppose gay marriage is because they hate gays and want gays to be less happy? Hey Sermo, do you ever wonder why you react so strongly every time a liberal doesn't engage a conservative with politeness and compromise, and yet alternatively when xDaunt and Danglars do the same you're seemingly fine with that? It's not like xDaunt or Danglars are those masters of compromise trying to reach us in the middle, is it. Have you ever thought about why you think it's our job to fill the gap? I think its your job to fill in the gap because you pretend to be better then they are? Do you want a cookie for being a better debater while doing exactly what the people you're against are doing? I don't react when Xdaunt and Danglers do the same because other people already do that. Even I have a point where I get off the bus (that happens to be libertarianism btw). Meeting in the middle for productive discourse requires both sides to participate. People have given Danglars and xDaunt more than they deserve, and they've shown that they're happier with vicious, polarized discourse. They're happy to call it out as an attack on their opponents, but they don't appear interested in doing anything about it. No one is asking for you to meet in the middle. I'm just saying if you want to act superior to them you should act superior to them. You've done nothing in the thread other then perpetuate vicious polarized discourse so you're the last person to complain about others wanting you to meet in the middle. I don't want to be superior to them, I want us all to be willing to have an honest discussion with each other. If I come off as polarizing because I don't indulge their bad faith argumentation, then I'm guilty as charged.
Seriously, what a construction! My bad behavior is justified because they started it!
On December 06 2017 02:27 Sermokala wrote:
Ah so you're a hypocrite. You want to act as bad as you accuse people of acting and argue in as bad faith as you say other people are arguing. I'm glad we've cleared this all up and you've admitted your guilt in the matter.
Liquid'Drone and Falling are useful examples of the reverse. You see, for example, Drone engaging on a stance he thinks is immoral, or an argument unfair, without dipping into unfair backlashes, flippant comments, and paragraphs of pure insults.
NewSunshine deserves credit for owning up to doing himself exactly what he likes to insult others for doing, even if he thinks he has more cause for the misbehavior than others.
|
|
|
It's nice to see the lawyers bringing up actual relevant cases (not like the examples brought up here yesterday)
For support, [ACLU Lawyer Mr. Cole] turns to the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion in Employment Division v. Smith, a 1990 opinion rejecting a claim that members of the Native American Church could not be penalized because they used peyote, a sacrament in their faith that nevertheless was illegal under state law.
Justice Scalia’s reasoning followed Reynolds v. U.S., an 1878 case rejecting a Mormon’s claim that his religious faith exempted him from bigamy laws. “To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and, in effect, to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances," the court said then
|
On December 06 2017 02:27 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 02:14 NewSunshine wrote:On December 06 2017 02:07 Sermokala wrote:On December 06 2017 01:58 NewSunshine wrote:On December 06 2017 01:51 Sermokala wrote:On December 06 2017 01:36 Nebuchad wrote:On December 06 2017 00:56 Sermokala wrote:On December 06 2017 00:51 NewSunshine wrote:On December 06 2017 00:46 LegalLord wrote:On December 06 2017 00:34 NewSunshine wrote:
[quote]
I mean, is anyone legitimately wondering why people don't take well to "Well, I consider gays to be basically insects, but I'm not gonna go around stomping on them for fun"? Does that really deserve the charity required for nuance at that point? No, there is no surprise that people known for hyperbole and “if you don’t take my political view on certain issues then you’re evil and not my friend” stances make utterly reductionist comparisons without even thinking that it might be a bit over the line. It’s all for the greater good (which at this point seems to be “doing anything and everything to stop Trump no matter the cost”) so of course said people won’t have any room for nuance or for thinking it might be over the line. Most people I know who oppose gay marriage don’t consider gays to be “basically insects.” Some could even be convinced to support the idea even if they don’t particularly like it. I don’t agree with them on that issue but it’s perhaps worth taking a look in a mirror and seeing that you are more responsible than they are for that perception. If I have a discussion with someone wherein I learn they oppose gay rights, and they double down on it because I said some not nice things to them, that is their problem, not mine. The problem to begin with is the other person not treating gay people like human beings. The fact that they're not happy being called out on it is not my fucking problem. And people like you wonder why the nation is polarized as ever. Your attitude on things like this is exactly why we're in the situation we're in right now. You don't even presume to want to make the world better or change peoples views you just want to treat people worse because you disagree with them. On December 06 2017 00:56 brian wrote:
is there a line between disrespecting the human rights of people and being evil? are we looking to set up some sort of 1-10 evil scale and decide where in the line ‘true evil’ starts? Do you think the only reason why people oppose gay marriage is because they hate gays and want gays to be less happy? Hey Sermo, do you ever wonder why you react so strongly every time a liberal doesn't engage a conservative with politeness and compromise, and yet alternatively when xDaunt and Danglars do the same you're seemingly fine with that? It's not like xDaunt or Danglars are those masters of compromise trying to reach us in the middle, is it. Have you ever thought about why you think it's our job to fill the gap? I think its your job to fill in the gap because you pretend to be better then they are? Do you want a cookie for being a better debater while doing exactly what the people you're against are doing? I don't react when Xdaunt and Danglers do the same because other people already do that. Even I have a point where I get off the bus (that happens to be libertarianism btw). Meeting in the middle for productive discourse requires both sides to participate. People have given Danglars and xDaunt more than they deserve, and they've shown that they're happier with vicious, polarized discourse. They're happy to call it out as an attack on their opponents, but they don't appear interested in doing anything about it. No one is asking for you to meet in the middle. I'm just saying if you want to act superior to them you should act superior to them. You've done nothing in the thread other then perpetuate vicious polarized discourse so you're the last person to complain about others wanting you to meet in the middle. I don't want to be superior to them, I want us all to be willing to have an honest discussion with each other. If I come off as polarizing because I don't indulge their bad faith argumentation, then I'm guilty as charged. Ah so you're a hypocrite. You want to act as bad as you accuse people of acting and argue in as bad faith as you say other people are arguing. I'm glad we've cleared this all up and you've admitted your guilt in the matter.
Are you trying to misunderstand me on purpose? What are you trying to achieve here?
|
On December 06 2017 02:54 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 02:14 NewSunshine wrote:On December 06 2017 02:07 Sermokala wrote:On December 06 2017 01:58 NewSunshine wrote:On December 06 2017 01:51 Sermokala wrote:On December 06 2017 01:36 Nebuchad wrote:On December 06 2017 00:56 Sermokala wrote:On December 06 2017 00:51 NewSunshine wrote:On December 06 2017 00:46 LegalLord wrote:On December 06 2017 00:34 NewSunshine wrote:
[quote]
I mean, is anyone legitimately wondering why people don't take well to "Well, I consider gays to be basically insects, but I'm not gonna go around stomping on them for fun"? Does that really deserve the charity required for nuance at that point? No, there is no surprise that people known for hyperbole and “if you don’t take my political view on certain issues then you’re evil and not my friend” stances make utterly reductionist comparisons without even thinking that it might be a bit over the line. It’s all for the greater good (which at this point seems to be “doing anything and everything to stop Trump no matter the cost”) so of course said people won’t have any room for nuance or for thinking it might be over the line. Most people I know who oppose gay marriage don’t consider gays to be “basically insects.” Some could even be convinced to support the idea even if they don’t particularly like it. I don’t agree with them on that issue but it’s perhaps worth taking a look in a mirror and seeing that you are more responsible than they are for that perception. If I have a discussion with someone wherein I learn they oppose gay rights, and they double down on it because I said some not nice things to them, that is their problem, not mine. The problem to begin with is the other person not treating gay people like human beings. The fact that they're not happy being called out on it is not my fucking problem. And people like you wonder why the nation is polarized as ever. Your attitude on things like this is exactly why we're in the situation we're in right now. You don't even presume to want to make the world better or change peoples views you just want to treat people worse because you disagree with them. On December 06 2017 00:56 brian wrote:
is there a line between disrespecting the human rights of people and being evil? are we looking to set up some sort of 1-10 evil scale and decide where in the line ‘true evil’ starts? Do you think the only reason why people oppose gay marriage is because they hate gays and want gays to be less happy? Hey Sermo, do you ever wonder why you react so strongly every time a liberal doesn't engage a conservative with politeness and compromise, and yet alternatively when xDaunt and Danglars do the same you're seemingly fine with that? It's not like xDaunt or Danglars are those masters of compromise trying to reach us in the middle, is it. Have you ever thought about why you think it's our job to fill the gap? I think its your job to fill in the gap because you pretend to be better then they are? Do you want a cookie for being a better debater while doing exactly what the people you're against are doing? I don't react when Xdaunt and Danglers do the same because other people already do that. Even I have a point where I get off the bus (that happens to be libertarianism btw). Meeting in the middle for productive discourse requires both sides to participate. People have given Danglars and xDaunt more than they deserve, and they've shown that they're happier with vicious, polarized discourse. They're happy to call it out as an attack on their opponents, but they don't appear interested in doing anything about it. No one is asking for you to meet in the middle. I'm just saying if you want to act superior to them you should act superior to them. You've done nothing in the thread other then perpetuate vicious polarized discourse so you're the last person to complain about others wanting you to meet in the middle. I don't want to be superior to them, I want us all to be willing to have an honest discussion with each other. If I come off as polarizing because I don't indulge their bad faith argumentation, then I'm guilty as charged. Seriously, what a construction! My bad behavior is justified because they started it! Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 02:27 Sermokala wrote:
Ah so you're a hypocrite. You want to act as bad as you accuse people of acting and argue in as bad faith as you say other people are arguing. I'm glad we've cleared this all up and you've admitted your guilt in the matter. Liquid'Drone and Falling are useful examples of the reverse. You see, for example, Drone engaging on a stance he thinks is immoral, or an argument unfair, without dipping into unfair backlashes, flippant comments, and paragraphs of pure insults. NewSunshine deserves credit for owning up to doing himself exactly what he likes to insult others for doing, even if he thinks he has more cause for the misbehavior than others.
If you weren't trying to read what you want into what he said, you would know that he doesn't believe that his bad behavior is justified, he believes that he doesn't have bad behavior on this topic.
However, props to you for doing exactly what you give props to NewSunshine for owning up to doing without owning up to it yourself.
|
On December 06 2017 02:14 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 02:07 Sermokala wrote:On December 06 2017 01:58 NewSunshine wrote:On December 06 2017 01:51 Sermokala wrote:On December 06 2017 01:36 Nebuchad wrote:On December 06 2017 00:56 Sermokala wrote:On December 06 2017 00:51 NewSunshine wrote:On December 06 2017 00:46 LegalLord wrote:On December 06 2017 00:34 NewSunshine wrote:On December 06 2017 00:24 LegalLord wrote:
[quote]
Holy shit that is about the most disingenuous false equivalency I’ve seen around here in months. Few people even take that “culture total war” view and the only one who seems to prominently do so (xDaunt) has said in the past things like “opposing gay rights doesn’t mean we want to murder them in the streets” (in response to Orlando or some Trump speech on it, I don’t remember). That’s about as good a comparison as saying, “you’re an evil person, why don’t you worship Darkseid and Palpatine and work on building a world in their style?” I mean, is anyone legitimately wondering why people don't take well to "Well, I consider gays to be basically insects, but I'm not gonna go around stomping on them for fun"? Does that really deserve the charity required for nuance at that point? No, there is no surprise that people known for hyperbole and “if you don’t take my political view on certain issues then you’re evil and not my friend” stances make utterly reductionist comparisons without even thinking that it might be a bit over the line. It’s all for the greater good (which at this point seems to be “doing anything and everything to stop Trump no matter the cost”) so of course said people won’t have any room for nuance or for thinking it might be over the line. Most people I know who oppose gay marriage don’t consider gays to be “basically insects.” Some could even be convinced to support the idea even if they don’t particularly like it. I don’t agree with them on that issue but it’s perhaps worth taking a look in a mirror and seeing that you are more responsible than they are for that perception. If I have a discussion with someone wherein I learn they oppose gay rights, and they double down on it because I said some not nice things to them, that is their problem, not mine. The problem to begin with is the other person not treating gay people like human beings. The fact that they're not happy being called out on it is not my fucking problem. And people like you wonder why the nation is polarized as ever. Your attitude on things like this is exactly why we're in the situation we're in right now. You don't even presume to want to make the world better or change peoples views you just want to treat people worse because you disagree with them. On December 06 2017 00:56 brian wrote:
is there a line between disrespecting the human rights of people and being evil? are we looking to set up some sort of 1-10 evil scale and decide where in the line ‘true evil’ starts? Do you think the only reason why people oppose gay marriage is because they hate gays and want gays to be less happy? Hey Sermo, do you ever wonder why you react so strongly every time a liberal doesn't engage a conservative with politeness and compromise, and yet alternatively when xDaunt and Danglars do the same you're seemingly fine with that? It's not like xDaunt or Danglars are those masters of compromise trying to reach us in the middle, is it. Have you ever thought about why you think it's our job to fill the gap? I think its your job to fill in the gap because you pretend to be better then they are? Do you want a cookie for being a better debater while doing exactly what the people you're against are doing? I don't react when Xdaunt and Danglers do the same because other people already do that. Even I have a point where I get off the bus (that happens to be libertarianism btw). Meeting in the middle for productive discourse requires both sides to participate. People have given Danglars and xDaunt more than they deserve, and they've shown that they're happier with vicious, polarized discourse. They're happy to call it out as an attack on their opponents, but they don't appear interested in doing anything about it. No one is asking for you to meet in the middle. I'm just saying if you want to act superior to them you should act superior to them. You've done nothing in the thread other then perpetuate vicious polarized discourse so you're the last person to complain about others wanting you to meet in the middle. I don't want to be superior to them, I want us all to be willing to have an honest discussion with each other. If I come off as polarizing because I don't indulge their bad faith argumentation, then I'm guilty as charged.
You need to take some time to fully appreciate the somewhat unique position that I am in. When I post, I tend to draw a ton of responses. Most of those responses tend to be utterly terrible. And many of those terrible responses contain insults against me personally. Just the last few pages of this thread are full of such posts. I'd be banned if I gave my true thoughts on each such post. But I'm not quite good enough to ignore all of these posts, which is why I creatively screw with people at times. The big tell here is that I won't do this to the posters who are respectful to me, like Igne, Mohdoo, Drone, and some of the other mods.
|
On December 06 2017 02:56 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 02:27 Sermokala wrote:On December 06 2017 02:14 NewSunshine wrote:On December 06 2017 02:07 Sermokala wrote:On December 06 2017 01:58 NewSunshine wrote:On December 06 2017 01:51 Sermokala wrote:On December 06 2017 01:36 Nebuchad wrote:On December 06 2017 00:56 Sermokala wrote:On December 06 2017 00:51 NewSunshine wrote:On December 06 2017 00:46 LegalLord wrote:
[quote]
No, there is no surprise that people known for hyperbole and “if you don’t take my political view on certain issues then you’re evil and not my friend” stances make utterly reductionist comparisons without even thinking that it might be a bit over the line. It’s all for the greater good (which at this point seems to be “doing anything and everything to stop Trump no matter the cost”) so of course said people won’t have any room for nuance or for thinking it might be over the line.
Most people I know who oppose gay marriage don’t consider gays to be “basically insects.” Some could even be convinced to support the idea even if they don’t particularly like it. I don’t agree with them on that issue but it’s perhaps worth taking a look in a mirror and seeing that you are more responsible than they are for that perception. If I have a discussion with someone wherein I learn they oppose gay rights, and they double down on it because I said some not nice things to them, that is their problem, not mine. The problem to begin with is the other person not treating gay people like human beings. The fact that they're not happy being called out on it is not my fucking problem. And people like you wonder why the nation is polarized as ever. Your attitude on things like this is exactly why we're in the situation we're in right now. You don't even presume to want to make the world better or change peoples views you just want to treat people worse because you disagree with them. On December 06 2017 00:56 brian wrote:
is there a line between disrespecting the human rights of people and being evil? are we looking to set up some sort of 1-10 evil scale and decide where in the line ‘true evil’ starts? Do you think the only reason why people oppose gay marriage is because they hate gays and want gays to be less happy? Hey Sermo, do you ever wonder why you react so strongly every time a liberal doesn't engage a conservative with politeness and compromise, and yet alternatively when xDaunt and Danglars do the same you're seemingly fine with that? It's not like xDaunt or Danglars are those masters of compromise trying to reach us in the middle, is it. Have you ever thought about why you think it's our job to fill the gap? I think its your job to fill in the gap because you pretend to be better then they are? Do you want a cookie for being a better debater while doing exactly what the people you're against are doing? I don't react when Xdaunt and Danglers do the same because other people already do that. Even I have a point where I get off the bus (that happens to be libertarianism btw). Meeting in the middle for productive discourse requires both sides to participate. People have given Danglars and xDaunt more than they deserve, and they've shown that they're happier with vicious, polarized discourse. They're happy to call it out as an attack on their opponents, but they don't appear interested in doing anything about it. No one is asking for you to meet in the middle. I'm just saying if you want to act superior to them you should act superior to them. You've done nothing in the thread other then perpetuate vicious polarized discourse so you're the last person to complain about others wanting you to meet in the middle. I don't want to be superior to them, I want us all to be willing to have an honest discussion with each other. If I come off as polarizing because I don't indulge their bad faith argumentation, then I'm guilty as charged. Ah so you're a hypocrite. You want to act as bad as you accuse people of acting and argue in as bad faith as you say other people are arguing. I'm glad we've cleared this all up and you've admitted your guilt in the matter. Are you trying to misunderstand me on purpose? What are you trying to achieve here?
I don't know if theres anything to misunderstand there. You don't want to be superior to the people you insult. You say you want an honest conversation but then say you refuse to argue honestly and admit guilt that you're not arguing honestly.
|
Part of me blames Civilization and its reductive scope of history for like 50% of this discussion. It's like the orient express and Ottoman Empire never existed. Hundreds of years where Europe interacted with Arabia and all we got some cool math. What a shit view of European history.
|
On December 06 2017 02:55 Logo wrote:It's nice to see the lawyers bringing up actual relevant cases ( not like the examples brought up here yesterday) Show nested quote +
For support, [ACLU Lawyer Mr. Cole] turns to the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion in Employment Division v. Smith, a 1990 opinion rejecting a claim that members of the Native American Church could not be penalized because they used peyote, a sacrament in their faith that nevertheless was illegal under state law.
Justice Scalia’s reasoning followed Reynolds v. U.S., an 1878 case rejecting a Mormon’s claim that his religious faith exempted him from bigamy laws. “To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and, in effect, to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances," the court said then
Ms. Waggoner tries to march through three points she has prepared in rebuttal. She argues that, 1) the Colorado Civil Rights Commission was biased because it did not cite bakers who refused to bake cakes denigrating same-sex marriage; 2) that Mr. Phillips is entitled to “dignity” under the law for his “honorable and decent beliefs about marriage,” and 3) that public opinion about same-sex marriage is moving already in Mr. Craig and Mr. Mullins’s direction.
Kristen K Waggoner, lawyer for Masterpiece Cakeshop arguing for the baker, brought identical examples to what I brought up yesterday.
Logo, here's your chance to tell me that she's also a dummy for bringing them up before the highest court in the land when her client stands liable to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Specifically, do you walk back "that's not a thing" and "It's not that hard and it's not some weird moral quandary," given that it's among several questions from at least 4 justices of the supreme court that find moral dilemmas?
I'm very interested, Logo, if you want to dismiss it for the third time, or if your understanding of the issues at stake have changed or become more nuanced?
Chief Justice Roberts returns to an earlier hypothetical: must, say, a nonprofit like Catholic Legal Services, affiliated with a church that views same-sex marriage as sinful, agree to represent a gay couple suing Masterpiece Cakeshop, simply because they offer other legal services to the public?
Not exactly a line I thought would come up...
|
On December 06 2017 03:02 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 02:56 NewSunshine wrote:On December 06 2017 02:27 Sermokala wrote:On December 06 2017 02:14 NewSunshine wrote:On December 06 2017 02:07 Sermokala wrote:On December 06 2017 01:58 NewSunshine wrote:On December 06 2017 01:51 Sermokala wrote:On December 06 2017 01:36 Nebuchad wrote:On December 06 2017 00:56 Sermokala wrote:On December 06 2017 00:51 NewSunshine wrote:
[quote]
If I have a discussion with someone wherein I learn they oppose gay rights, and they double down on it because I said some not nice things to them, that is their problem, not mine. The problem to begin with is the other person not treating gay people like human beings. The fact that they're not happy being called out on it is not my fucking problem. And people like you wonder why the nation is polarized as ever. Your attitude on things like this is exactly why we're in the situation we're in right now. You don't even presume to want to make the world better or change peoples views you just want to treat people worse because you disagree with them. On December 06 2017 00:56 brian wrote:
is there a line between disrespecting the human rights of people and being evil? are we looking to set up some sort of 1-10 evil scale and decide where in the line ‘true evil’ starts? Do you think the only reason why people oppose gay marriage is because they hate gays and want gays to be less happy? Hey Sermo, do you ever wonder why you react so strongly every time a liberal doesn't engage a conservative with politeness and compromise, and yet alternatively when xDaunt and Danglars do the same you're seemingly fine with that? It's not like xDaunt or Danglars are those masters of compromise trying to reach us in the middle, is it. Have you ever thought about why you think it's our job to fill the gap? I think its your job to fill in the gap because you pretend to be better then they are? Do you want a cookie for being a better debater while doing exactly what the people you're against are doing? I don't react when Xdaunt and Danglers do the same because other people already do that. Even I have a point where I get off the bus (that happens to be libertarianism btw). Meeting in the middle for productive discourse requires both sides to participate. People have given Danglars and xDaunt more than they deserve, and they've shown that they're happier with vicious, polarized discourse. They're happy to call it out as an attack on their opponents, but they don't appear interested in doing anything about it. No one is asking for you to meet in the middle. I'm just saying if you want to act superior to them you should act superior to them. You've done nothing in the thread other then perpetuate vicious polarized discourse so you're the last person to complain about others wanting you to meet in the middle. I don't want to be superior to them, I want us all to be willing to have an honest discussion with each other. If I come off as polarizing because I don't indulge their bad faith argumentation, then I'm guilty as charged. Ah so you're a hypocrite. You want to act as bad as you accuse people of acting and argue in as bad faith as you say other people are arguing. I'm glad we've cleared this all up and you've admitted your guilt in the matter. Are you trying to misunderstand me on purpose? What are you trying to achieve here? I don't know if theres anything to misunderstand there. You don't want to be superior to the people you insult. You say you want an honest conversation but then say you refuse to argue honestly and admit guilt that you're not arguing honestly.
In my saying I don't wish to be superior to them, I mean I don't wish for there to be anything for me to act superior about. I don't want to have to be the bigger man in the conversation, I want everyone to be doing their part to contribute to a further understanding, particularly to the "filling the gap" point.
On December 06 2017 03:01 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 02:14 NewSunshine wrote:On December 06 2017 02:07 Sermokala wrote:On December 06 2017 01:58 NewSunshine wrote:On December 06 2017 01:51 Sermokala wrote:On December 06 2017 01:36 Nebuchad wrote:On December 06 2017 00:56 Sermokala wrote:On December 06 2017 00:51 NewSunshine wrote:On December 06 2017 00:46 LegalLord wrote:On December 06 2017 00:34 NewSunshine wrote:
[quote]
I mean, is anyone legitimately wondering why people don't take well to "Well, I consider gays to be basically insects, but I'm not gonna go around stomping on them for fun"? Does that really deserve the charity required for nuance at that point? No, there is no surprise that people known for hyperbole and “if you don’t take my political view on certain issues then you’re evil and not my friend” stances make utterly reductionist comparisons without even thinking that it might be a bit over the line. It’s all for the greater good (which at this point seems to be “doing anything and everything to stop Trump no matter the cost”) so of course said people won’t have any room for nuance or for thinking it might be over the line. Most people I know who oppose gay marriage don’t consider gays to be “basically insects.” Some could even be convinced to support the idea even if they don’t particularly like it. I don’t agree with them on that issue but it’s perhaps worth taking a look in a mirror and seeing that you are more responsible than they are for that perception. If I have a discussion with someone wherein I learn they oppose gay rights, and they double down on it because I said some not nice things to them, that is their problem, not mine. The problem to begin with is the other person not treating gay people like human beings. The fact that they're not happy being called out on it is not my fucking problem. And people like you wonder why the nation is polarized as ever. Your attitude on things like this is exactly why we're in the situation we're in right now. You don't even presume to want to make the world better or change peoples views you just want to treat people worse because you disagree with them. On December 06 2017 00:56 brian wrote:
is there a line between disrespecting the human rights of people and being evil? are we looking to set up some sort of 1-10 evil scale and decide where in the line ‘true evil’ starts? Do you think the only reason why people oppose gay marriage is because they hate gays and want gays to be less happy? Hey Sermo, do you ever wonder why you react so strongly every time a liberal doesn't engage a conservative with politeness and compromise, and yet alternatively when xDaunt and Danglars do the same you're seemingly fine with that? It's not like xDaunt or Danglars are those masters of compromise trying to reach us in the middle, is it. Have you ever thought about why you think it's our job to fill the gap? I think its your job to fill in the gap because you pretend to be better then they are? Do you want a cookie for being a better debater while doing exactly what the people you're against are doing? I don't react when Xdaunt and Danglers do the same because other people already do that. Even I have a point where I get off the bus (that happens to be libertarianism btw). Meeting in the middle for productive discourse requires both sides to participate. People have given Danglars and xDaunt more than they deserve, and they've shown that they're happier with vicious, polarized discourse. They're happy to call it out as an attack on their opponents, but they don't appear interested in doing anything about it. No one is asking for you to meet in the middle. I'm just saying if you want to act superior to them you should act superior to them. You've done nothing in the thread other then perpetuate vicious polarized discourse so you're the last person to complain about others wanting you to meet in the middle. I don't want to be superior to them, I want us all to be willing to have an honest discussion with each other. If I come off as polarizing because I don't indulge their bad faith argumentation, then I'm guilty as charged. You need to take some time to fully appreciate the somewhat unique position that I am in. When I post, I tend to draw a ton of responses. Most of those responses tend to be utterly terrible. And many of those terrible responses contain insults against me personally. Just the last few pages of this thread are full of such posts. I'd be banned if I gave my true thoughts on each such post. But I'm not quite good enough to ignore all of these posts, which is why I creatively screw with people at times. The big tell here is that I won't do this to the posters who are respectful to me, like Igne, Mohdoo, Drone, and some of the other mods.
I appreciate your honesty. I think we have a pretty fundamental disagreement there, but I don't think we need to hash it out anymore, it's pretty well understood.
|
It was like.. The plague killing most trade and then Ottomans unfriendly relations?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
