|
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 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.
If you're having trouble parsing Sunshine's answer, Sermo, there's always my answer which had basically the same content and that you chose not to give an answer to.
|
TIL businesses can have a religion, they get more and more like people every day >.>
|
On December 06 2017 02:59 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 02:54 Danglars 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. 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. 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.
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.
What you're missing, perhaps intentionally, is that he admits that his interactions have polarized the discourse, justifying it as "because I don't indulge their bad faith argumentation" [they provoked me first]. "I'm guilty as charged" means that he accepts the characterization, with the understanding that he considers it warranted. I'm not implying you or he will observe and reflect on the plain meaning of his speech.
|
What on earth makes you believe I have any idea what answer you're referring to. Is it the one in the quote chain that has the answer to your question right underneath it?
|
On December 06 2017 03:17 ThaddeusK wrote:
TIL businesses can have a religion, they get more and more like people every day >.>
I learned long ago that people think you leave your free speech and free expression rights when you go into business.
If free speech rights aren't weighed in the margins and conflicts, then you simply don't have them. If you stop a second to examine the topic, you'll probably find you agree with the preservation of certain rights, but would weigh things like public accommodation higher than I do.
|
On December 06 2017 03:21 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 03:17 ThaddeusK wrote:
TIL businesses can have a religion, they get more and more like people every day >.> I learned long ago that people think you leave your free speech and free expression rights when you go into business. If free speech rights aren't weighed in the margins and conflicts, then you simply don't have them. If you stop a second to examine the topic, you'll probably find you agree with the preservation of certain rights, but would weigh things like public accommodation higher than I do.
You don't lose them when you go into business, you still have them and your business never did.
|
On December 06 2017 03:21 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 03:17 ThaddeusK wrote:
TIL businesses can have a religion, they get more and more like people every day >.> I learned long ago that people think you leave your free speech and free expression rights when you go into business. If free speech rights aren't weighed in the margins and conflicts, then you simply don't have them. If you stop a second to examine the topic, you'll probably find you agree with the preservation of certain rights, but would weigh things like public accommodation higher than I do.
There's a pretty strong distinction between a public business, which is subject to plenty of customs, norms and laws and free speech in the absolutist, private sense. Businesses follow plenty of rules that private individuals don't have to and they serve the role of exchanging goods in a marketplace. The idea that moral values (in case of homophobia a really bad one) should be expressed in a marketplace is really bad and paternalistic. It's the same kind of reasoning that employers want to use to pull abortion or contraception off their employees insurance.
If you want to preach do it in a church but I think it's in everybody's interest if it's kept out of everyday business.
|
It would be nice if we had specific law on what exactly a business is in regard to its rights. If the person operating that business is where it gets its existence or if they have to surrender their rights in service to that business by working it/ in it.
|
On December 06 2017 03:18 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 02:59 Nebuchad wrote:On December 06 2017 02:54 Danglars 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. 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. 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. Show nested quote +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. What you're missing, perhaps intentionally, is that he admits that his interactions have polarized the discourse, justifying it as "because I don't indulge their bad faith argumentation" [ they provoked me first]. "I'm guilty as charged" means that he accepts the characterization, with the understanding that he considers it warranted. I'm not implying you or he will observe and reflect on the plain meaning of his speech.
"I'm guilty as charged" doesn't mean that he accepts his own hypocrysy "because you provoked him", it means that he views the accusation that was made against him as futile and he dismisses it. "If you call people who don't accept your bullshit "polarizing" because they don't accept your bullshit, then I'm guilty". It's pretty clear.
This comes back to my original critic to Sermo. You're never polarizing for having extreme views, we're polarizing for not compromising with you. In your case at least I'm pretty sure you know this is a rhetorical trick but I wasn't sure when it comes to Sermo (and I'm still not, cause his answers are generally weird).
|
On December 06 2017 03:23 ThaddeusK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 03:21 Danglars wrote:On December 06 2017 03:17 ThaddeusK wrote:
TIL businesses can have a religion, they get more and more like people every day >.> I learned long ago that people think you leave your free speech and free expression rights when you go into business. If free speech rights aren't weighed in the margins and conflicts, then you simply don't have them. If you stop a second to examine the topic, you'll probably find you agree with the preservation of certain rights, but would weigh things like public accommodation higher than I do. You don't lose them when you go into business, you still have them and your business never did.
Which of the following messages can the state force you to write on a custom-designed wedding cake. "The Nazis did nothing wrong," "Congrats on the abortion, Jenny," "ThaddeusK's dick is small," "The Christian God is real and Muhammed is a false prophet."
Tell me where you draw the line on compelled speech. Or if instead an artist in an LLC can be forced to paint a painting of a rainbow with "Homosexuality is a sin."
|
On December 06 2017 03:25 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 03:21 Danglars wrote:On December 06 2017 03:17 ThaddeusK wrote:
TIL businesses can have a religion, they get more and more like people every day >.> I learned long ago that people think you leave your free speech and free expression rights when you go into business. If free speech rights aren't weighed in the margins and conflicts, then you simply don't have them. If you stop a second to examine the topic, you'll probably find you agree with the preservation of certain rights, but would weigh things like public accommodation higher than I do. There's a pretty strong distinction between a public business, which is subject to plenty of customs, norms and laws and free speech in the absolutist, private sense. Businesses follow plenty of rules that private individuals don't have to and they serve the role of exchanging goods in a marketplace. The idea that moral values (in case of homophobia a really bad one) should be expressed in a marketplace is really bad and paternalistic. It's the same kind of reasoning that employers want to use to pull abortion or contraception off their employees insurance. If you want to preach do it in a church but I think it's in everybody's interest if it's kept out of everyday business.
As long as there's people in businesses, the free speech and free exercise rights of the individuals must be balanced against other rights and laws. Otherwise, you're paying lip service to free speech, and don't really believe in the right at all. Where do you land on the balance?
|
United States42004 Posts
On December 06 2017 03:27 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 03:23 ThaddeusK wrote:On December 06 2017 03:21 Danglars wrote:On December 06 2017 03:17 ThaddeusK wrote:
TIL businesses can have a religion, they get more and more like people every day >.> I learned long ago that people think you leave your free speech and free expression rights when you go into business. If free speech rights aren't weighed in the margins and conflicts, then you simply don't have them. If you stop a second to examine the topic, you'll probably find you agree with the preservation of certain rights, but would weigh things like public accommodation higher than I do. You don't lose them when you go into business, you still have them and your business never did. Which of the following messages can the state force you to write on a custom-designed wedding cake. "The Nazis did nothing wrong," "Congrats on the abortion, Jenny," "ThaddeusK's dick is small," "The Christian God is real and Muhammed is a false prophet." Tell me where you draw the line on compelled speech. Or if instead an artist in an LLC can be forced to paint a painting of a rainbow with "Homosexuality is a sin."
As previously stated over and over, it depends upon whether the refusal of the message is being used as a proxy for the refusal of the protected class because it was never about the message in the first place.
Probably the only one of those that is even arguable is the last one, given that belief in the Christian God is a central component of Christianity. The rest of the messages have absolutely no relation to any protected class.
You can refuse a message for being in bad taste, you just can't claim that you're refusing it in bad taste when the real reason is that you're refusing service to a protected class as a business serving members of the public. It's no different to how you can fire a black employee for incompetence, but you can't claim that you're firing them for incompetence when the real reason is that you don't want any black employees. That's how protected classes work.
|
On December 06 2017 03:26 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 03:18 Danglars wrote:On December 06 2017 02:59 Nebuchad wrote:On December 06 2017 02:54 Danglars 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:
[quote]
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.
[quote]
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. 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. 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. What you're missing, perhaps intentionally, is that he admits that his interactions have polarized the discourse, justifying it as "because I don't indulge their bad faith argumentation" [ they provoked me first]. "I'm guilty as charged" means that he accepts the characterization, with the understanding that he considers it warranted. I'm not implying you or he will observe and reflect on the plain meaning of his speech. "I'm guilty as charged" doesn't mean that he accepts his own hypocrysy "because you provoked him", it means that he views the accusation that was made against him as futile and he dismisses it. "If you call people who don't accept your bullshit "polarizing" because they don't accept your bullshit, then I'm guilty". It's pretty clear. This comes back to my original critic to Sermo. You're never polarizing for having extreme views, we're polarizing for not compromising with you. In your case at least I'm pretty sure you know this is a rhetorical trick but I wasn't sure when it comes to Sermo (and I'm still not, cause his answers are generally weird).
Hilarious. Maybe you should read the antecedent to "guilty as charged." What on earth do you think "I don't indulge their bad faith argumentation" means?
|
On December 06 2017 03:27 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 03:23 ThaddeusK wrote:On December 06 2017 03:21 Danglars wrote:On December 06 2017 03:17 ThaddeusK wrote:
TIL businesses can have a religion, they get more and more like people every day >.> I learned long ago that people think you leave your free speech and free expression rights when you go into business. If free speech rights aren't weighed in the margins and conflicts, then you simply don't have them. If you stop a second to examine the topic, you'll probably find you agree with the preservation of certain rights, but would weigh things like public accommodation higher than I do. You don't lose them when you go into business, you still have them and your business never did. Which of the following messages can the state force you to write on a custom-designed wedding cake. "The Nazis did nothing wrong," "Congrats on the abortion, Jenny," "ThaddeusK's dick is small," "The Christian God is real and Muhammed is a false prophet." Tell me where you draw the line on compelled speech. Or if instead an artist in an LLC can be forced to paint a painting of a rainbow with "Homosexuality is a sin."
The state can force me to do them all, they have guns and what not. If we are going into what should be, then I think that businesses catering to the public should not be able to reject someone on the basis of their membership in a protected class (and sexual orientation should be one). So to answer your question specifically, none of them unless the reason I'm not doing it is because they are black and then all of them.
|
On December 06 2017 03:26 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 03:18 Danglars wrote:On December 06 2017 02:59 Nebuchad wrote:On December 06 2017 02:54 Danglars 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:
[quote]
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.
[quote]
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. 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. 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. What you're missing, perhaps intentionally, is that he admits that his interactions have polarized the discourse, justifying it as "because I don't indulge their bad faith argumentation" [ they provoked me first]. "I'm guilty as charged" means that he accepts the characterization, with the understanding that he considers it warranted. I'm not implying you or he will observe and reflect on the plain meaning of his speech. "I'm guilty as charged" doesn't mean that he accepts his own hypocrysy "because you provoked him", it means that he views the accusation that was made against him as futile and he dismisses it. "If you call people who don't accept your bullshit "polarizing" because they don't accept your bullshit, then I'm guilty". It's pretty clear. This comes back to my original critic to Sermo. You're never polarizing for having extreme views, we're polarizing for not compromising with you. In your case at least I'm pretty sure you know this is a rhetorical trick but I wasn't sure when it comes to Sermo (and I'm still not, cause his answers are generally weird).
My answer is yes? You're inherently labeling their views as extreme and refusing to compromise thats as polarizing as you can get. Nothing good has come from anything without compromise. Its the definitive good answer to any argument or situation you can be in. You shouldn't compromise your limits of compromise for the sake of compromising but thats you compromising with how much you should compromise.
|
On December 06 2017 03:29 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 03:25 Nyxisto wrote:On December 06 2017 03:21 Danglars wrote:On December 06 2017 03:17 ThaddeusK wrote:
TIL businesses can have a religion, they get more and more like people every day >.> I learned long ago that people think you leave your free speech and free expression rights when you go into business. If free speech rights aren't weighed in the margins and conflicts, then you simply don't have them. If you stop a second to examine the topic, you'll probably find you agree with the preservation of certain rights, but would weigh things like public accommodation higher than I do. There's a pretty strong distinction between a public business, which is subject to plenty of customs, norms and laws and free speech in the absolutist, private sense. Businesses follow plenty of rules that private individuals don't have to and they serve the role of exchanging goods in a marketplace. The idea that moral values (in case of homophobia a really bad one) should be expressed in a marketplace is really bad and paternalistic. It's the same kind of reasoning that employers want to use to pull abortion or contraception off their employees insurance. If you want to preach do it in a church but I think it's in everybody's interest if it's kept out of everyday business. As long as there's people in businesses, the free speech and free exercise rights of the individuals must be balanced against other rights and laws. Otherwise, you're paying lip service to free speech, and don't really believe in the right at all. Where do you land on the balance?
I personally probably don't fall on the free speech side in general, but I think it's not legitimate to equal the individual right to speech with the right as an employee or employer. Take the Google memo for example. I think it's totally legitimate for the guy to post this stuff on the internet as a private citizen, but if he works for Google he has a job as a software developer, not as the in house biologist who can start a culture war.
Laws should reflect that in the market people should act professionally and without discrimination. It's not the place to have a political debate or to express your beliefs. We're much better off if we keep this to the political or cutltural spaces. In many ways this discrimination through business has always happened when someone finds themselves on the loosing side of a culture war. If you can't convince them privately, boycott their business or don't sell to xy. It's nasty and undemocratic in a sense.
|
On December 06 2017 03:17 ThaddeusK wrote:
TIL businesses can have a religion, they get more and more like people every day >.>
I'm going to enjoy when Comcast converts to Buddhism and then claims they don't have to provide health coverage that covers vaccines. The share holder vote will be something else.
|
On December 06 2017 03:25 Sermokala wrote:
It would be nice if we had specific law on what exactly a business is in regard to its rights. If the person operating that business is where it gets its existence or if they have to surrender their rights in service to that business by working it/ in it.
I think the best we can do is examine a history of case decisions examining where dozens of rights trespass too far, or are preserved up to this point. There's just too many rights of individuals working in the business that are examined in laws, tested in courts, and not universally unlimited. Privacy, fair compensation, discrimination on sex/race/etc, harassment, safety, whistleblower, disabilities, and the list goes on. The whole "competing interests" aspect for employee, employer, and government doesn't lend itself to accurate detail in a single law.
|
On December 06 2017 03:32 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 03:26 Nebuchad wrote:On December 06 2017 03:18 Danglars wrote:On December 06 2017 02:59 Nebuchad wrote:On December 06 2017 02:54 Danglars 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:
[quote]
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. 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. 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. What you're missing, perhaps intentionally, is that he admits that his interactions have polarized the discourse, justifying it as "because I don't indulge their bad faith argumentation" [ they provoked me first]. "I'm guilty as charged" means that he accepts the characterization, with the understanding that he considers it warranted. I'm not implying you or he will observe and reflect on the plain meaning of his speech. "I'm guilty as charged" doesn't mean that he accepts his own hypocrysy "because you provoked him", it means that he views the accusation that was made against him as futile and he dismisses it. "If you call people who don't accept your bullshit "polarizing" because they don't accept your bullshit, then I'm guilty". It's pretty clear. This comes back to my original critic to Sermo. You're never polarizing for having extreme views, we're polarizing for not compromising with you. In your case at least I'm pretty sure you know this is a rhetorical trick but I wasn't sure when it comes to Sermo (and I'm still not, cause his answers are generally weird). Hilarious. Maybe you should read the antecedent to "guilty as charged." What on earth do you think "I don't indulge their bad faith argumentation" means?
Doesn't the post you quoted answer that question?
|
Good for the WSJ. Everyone should follow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
