|
On January 19 2012 06:07 radiatoren wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 04:30 Hider wrote:On January 19 2012 04:12 forgottendreams wrote:I like all the people who post a hit and run source (that could be old, spurious or false by now) and claim it's the end all be all. The general consensus among recent scholars is that right to carry laws and a bad economy now are thought to have no significant correlation with violent crime. Yes I get it, all the gun happy guys are going to point to Lott's 2005 "More Guns Less Crime" but in scholarly terms it's verging on ancient. There is a national downward trend in crime rate (all of this data can be accessed easily by the "UCR") even in Illinois, the only state with no concealed carry law who has had a similar drop in violent crime rates as say in Florida, where they were pioneers of right to carry laws. You don't even need to read the recent journals on what I'm talking about, it can simply be summed here properly http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/feb/16/national-rifle-association/wayne-lapierre-said-violent-crime-jurisdictions-re/In another words at least pertaining to the U.S., guns aren't really bad or good in terms of crime, so no side should be claiming some annoying victory. I claim the victory  Because utilitiaran cant defend their case and should not be taking side. Only those who cus of principle is for weapons (me) or against, can actually argue. Every post the "utility-maxisimers" have, should be on analysing the statistiscs. The reason why this hasn't been the case, is becuase most people dont even get why they have their specific opinion. Most likely through culture and manipulation they have been taught to think in a specific way, and hence not learned to use logic. Please contain your paranoia. Nobody is brainwashing you and the government has not been proven to be controlled by marsians.
PLease read previous post before. Obv. your getting brainwashed if your against your right to defend your own property using guns, yet have no idea why your against it. Govnerment isn't brainwashing directly though, but is influencing culture. So yeh please stop coming with claims not backed up by any arguments to topics that aren't very relevant and not discussed anymore.
|
What in the fucking world are you on about.
|
On January 19 2012 06:11 Elegy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 06:03 Hider wrote:
If i admit I am gay should I still be allowed to get any kind of job (given my qualificans are up to pair) even though the boss's dont like gay people. Is it a human right for me to get a job, and should their opinions of gay people be disallowed by law?
If no, whats the difference between being accepted into military and job in private sector. Is it because every government job should be allowed for everbody? ... Gays couldn't serve openly because they were gay. One's sexual orientation should be irrelevant when it comes to determining suitability for employment. It is perfectly fine (though regrettable) that people dislike homosexuals simply because of their orientation, but that dislike cannot be codified into law, which it most certainly was under DADT. Denying one's service merely because they enjoy a different sexual preference is discrimination and cannot be lawful.
But there weren't any law that denied them acces to military? The military bosses just disliked them, right? And should we through force make it illegal for bosses in private companies and government instituions to dislike some minorities and make them worse of? If a racist opens a new company, and dont want to hire a black man, should he be put in prison?
|
On January 19 2012 04:46 Mohdoo wrote:
Getting rid of families going backrupt from pre-existing medical conditions, allowing gays to serve openly in the military, and doing his best to keep Republicans from outlawing birth control are all good things he's done. I don't like a lot of what he's done, but he's done some good. stem cell research, student loan reform, credit card reform, financial reform
He's not my perfect president, far from it. But its only fair to give credit where due that I believe I would have vastly preferred him over a Republican.
Student loan reform, financial reform? I'd say he hasn't done much of that...what did he do, make it so you could reduce your interest rate by a couple of bips? The real problem with student loans is the inability to declare bankruptcy on them and that was completely ignored by Obama.
|
On January 19 2012 06:14 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 06:11 Elegy wrote:On January 19 2012 06:03 Hider wrote:
If i admit I am gay should I still be allowed to get any kind of job (given my qualificans are up to pair) even though the boss's dont like gay people. Is it a human right for me to get a job, and should their opinions of gay people be disallowed by law?
If no, whats the difference between being accepted into military and job in private sector. Is it because every government job should be allowed for everbody? ... Gays couldn't serve openly because they were gay. One's sexual orientation should be irrelevant when it comes to determining suitability for employment. It is perfectly fine (though regrettable) that people dislike homosexuals simply because of their orientation, but that dislike cannot be codified into law, which it most certainly was under DADT. Denying one's service merely because they enjoy a different sexual preference is discrimination and cannot be lawful. But there weren't any law that denied them acces to military? The military bosses just disliked them, right? And should we through force make it illegal for bosses in private companies and government instituions to dislike some minorities and make them worse of? If a racist opens a new company, and dont want to hire a black man, should he be put in prison?
No, it was illegal for gays to serve openly. Meaning, if a gay man or woman wished to serve, he would have to hide his sexual preference.
And to the second part, there are a myriad of laws regarding that...
http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html
|
On January 19 2012 06:14 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 06:11 Elegy wrote:On January 19 2012 06:03 Hider wrote:
If i admit I am gay should I still be allowed to get any kind of job (given my qualificans are up to pair) even though the boss's dont like gay people. Is it a human right for me to get a job, and should their opinions of gay people be disallowed by law?
If no, whats the difference between being accepted into military and job in private sector. Is it because every government job should be allowed for everbody? ... Gays couldn't serve openly because they were gay. One's sexual orientation should be irrelevant when it comes to determining suitability for employment. It is perfectly fine (though regrettable) that people dislike homosexuals simply because of their orientation, but that dislike cannot be codified into law, which it most certainly was under DADT. Denying one's service merely because they enjoy a different sexual preference is discrimination and cannot be lawful. But there weren't any law that denied them acces to military? The military bosses just disliked them, right? And should we through force make it illegal for bosses in private companies and government instituions to dislike some minorities and make them worse of? If a racist opens a new company, and dont want to hire a black man, should he be put in prison?
No laws are absolute. They are based on moral values of the majority (or in some cases the bourgeois) So yes in Sweden if a person doesn't hire a person based on the colour of their skin they are breaking the law.
|
On January 19 2012 06:21 Elegy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 06:14 Hider wrote:On January 19 2012 06:11 Elegy wrote:On January 19 2012 06:03 Hider wrote:
If i admit I am gay should I still be allowed to get any kind of job (given my qualificans are up to pair) even though the boss's dont like gay people. Is it a human right for me to get a job, and should their opinions of gay people be disallowed by law?
If no, whats the difference between being accepted into military and job in private sector. Is it because every government job should be allowed for everbody? ... Gays couldn't serve openly because they were gay. One's sexual orientation should be irrelevant when it comes to determining suitability for employment. It is perfectly fine (though regrettable) that people dislike homosexuals simply because of their orientation, but that dislike cannot be codified into law, which it most certainly was under DADT. Denying one's service merely because they enjoy a different sexual preference is discrimination and cannot be lawful. But there weren't any law that denied them acces to military? The military bosses just disliked them, right? And should we through force make it illegal for bosses in private companies and government instituions to dislike some minorities and make them worse of? If a racist opens a new company, and dont want to hire a black man, should he be put in prison? No, it was illegal for gays to serve openly. Meaning, if a gay man or woman wished to serve, he would have to hide his sexual preference. And to the second part, there are a myriad of laws regarding that... http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html
Ok. I wasn't aware it was in fact illegal (does it state that directly in the law). I always just throught it was a cultural thing. My bad.
|
On January 19 2012 06:24 Eppa! wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 06:14 Hider wrote:On January 19 2012 06:11 Elegy wrote:On January 19 2012 06:03 Hider wrote:
If i admit I am gay should I still be allowed to get any kind of job (given my qualificans are up to pair) even though the boss's dont like gay people. Is it a human right for me to get a job, and should their opinions of gay people be disallowed by law?
If no, whats the difference between being accepted into military and job in private sector. Is it because every government job should be allowed for everbody? ... Gays couldn't serve openly because they were gay. One's sexual orientation should be irrelevant when it comes to determining suitability for employment. It is perfectly fine (though regrettable) that people dislike homosexuals simply because of their orientation, but that dislike cannot be codified into law, which it most certainly was under DADT. Denying one's service merely because they enjoy a different sexual preference is discrimination and cannot be lawful. But there weren't any law that denied them acces to military? The military bosses just disliked them, right? And should we through force make it illegal for bosses in private companies and government instituions to dislike some minorities and make them worse of? If a racist opens a new company, and dont want to hire a black man, should he be put in prison? No laws are absolute. They are based on moral values of the majority (or in some cases the bourgeois) So yes in Sweden if a person doesn't hire a person based on the colour of their skin they are breaking the law.
Yes i know that. But I think i can go on and on and make more extreme examples and then conclude why this law is just bad (ppl should be allowed to be racist IMO). But im not gonna go into this kind of discussion (read above).
|
On January 19 2012 06:27 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 06:24 Eppa! wrote:On January 19 2012 06:14 Hider wrote:On January 19 2012 06:11 Elegy wrote:On January 19 2012 06:03 Hider wrote:
If i admit I am gay should I still be allowed to get any kind of job (given my qualificans are up to pair) even though the boss's dont like gay people. Is it a human right for me to get a job, and should their opinions of gay people be disallowed by law?
If no, whats the difference between being accepted into military and job in private sector. Is it because every government job should be allowed for everbody? ... Gays couldn't serve openly because they were gay. One's sexual orientation should be irrelevant when it comes to determining suitability for employment. It is perfectly fine (though regrettable) that people dislike homosexuals simply because of their orientation, but that dislike cannot be codified into law, which it most certainly was under DADT. Denying one's service merely because they enjoy a different sexual preference is discrimination and cannot be lawful. But there weren't any law that denied them acces to military? The military bosses just disliked them, right? And should we through force make it illegal for bosses in private companies and government instituions to dislike some minorities and make them worse of? If a racist opens a new company, and dont want to hire a black man, should he be put in prison? No laws are absolute. They are based on moral values of the majority (or in some cases the bourgeois) So yes in Sweden if a person doesn't hire a person based on the colour of their skin they are breaking the law. Yes i know that. But I think i can go on and on and make more extreme examples and then conclude why this law is just bad (ppl should be allowed to be racist IMO). But im not gonna go into this kind of discussion (read above).
By that logic, you would be ok with universities not allowing black people to go to their school?
|
United States6959 Posts
On January 19 2012 06:03 Hider wrote:
If i admit I am gay should I still be allowed to get any kind of job (given my qualificans are up to pair) even though the boss's dont like gay people. Is it a human right for me to get a job, and should their opinions of gay people be disallowed by law?
If no, whats the difference between being accepted into military and job in private sector. Is it because every government job should be allowed for everbody?
The military is a government organization, the private sector is, by definition and name, the private sector. Yes, the government should and does have a responsibility to make sure all of its positions are completely non-discriminatory. This is an incredibly basic concept.
|
So a person's worth shouldn't be judged by their capabilities in whatever field, but rather in their heritage, right?
|
On January 19 2012 06:35 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 06:03 Hider wrote:
If i admit I am gay should I still be allowed to get any kind of job (given my qualificans are up to pair) even though the boss's dont like gay people. Is it a human right for me to get a job, and should their opinions of gay people be disallowed by law?
If no, whats the difference between being accepted into military and job in private sector. Is it because every government job should be allowed for everbody? The military is a government organization, the private sector is, by definition and name, the private sector. Yes, the government should and does have a responsibility to make sure all of its positions are completely non-discriminatory. This is an incredibly basic concept.
nothing is basic in politics. Its based on opinions. One could argue that goverments should try to act as much like private companies as possible to become most efficiently.
|
On January 19 2012 06:36 koreasilver wrote:
So a person's worth shouldn't be judged by their capabilities in whatever field, but rather in their heritage, right?
Gratz, you missed the point.
|
On January 19 2012 06:35 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 06:03 Hider wrote:
If i admit I am gay should I still be allowed to get any kind of job (given my qualificans are up to pair) even though the boss's dont like gay people. Is it a human right for me to get a job, and should their opinions of gay people be disallowed by law?
If no, whats the difference between being accepted into military and job in private sector. Is it because every government job should be allowed for everbody? The military is a government organization, the private sector is, by definition and name, the private sector. Yes, the government should and does have a responsibility to make sure all of its positions are completely non-discriminatory. This is an incredibly basic concept.
^ Pretty much this. Military is public sector (ie. salaries are paid with public tax dollars). Last I checked, gay people paid taxes too, and so are entitled to have equal opportunities to work in the public sector.
|
United States6959 Posts
On January 19 2012 06:21 allecto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 04:46 Mohdoo wrote:
Getting rid of families going backrupt from pre-existing medical conditions, allowing gays to serve openly in the military, and doing his best to keep Republicans from outlawing birth control are all good things he's done. I don't like a lot of what he's done, but he's done some good. stem cell research, student loan reform, credit card reform, financial reform
He's not my perfect president, far from it. But its only fair to give credit where due that I believe I would have vastly preferred him over a Republican. Student loan reform, financial reform? I'd say he hasn't done much of that...what did he do, make it so you could reduce your interest rate by a couple of bips? The real problem with student loans is the inability to declare bankruptcy on them and that was completely ignored by Obama.
When will people understand that the President of the U.S. can't introduce any kind of legislation? He can only influence members of Congress to do so, and when you have the Republican party being so incredibly uncooperative and straight up unhelpful since they took a majority in the House, you can't really do a whole lot. It's basically been the Republican philosophy to say "Fuck you Obama" since they got elected, doing absolutely nothing to actually help the people. I mean really, when the GOP's number one goal for this election is to make sure Obama won't be re-elected, that says volumes about its failure to focus on its actual job. The GOP is an embarrassment to American politics. Not only this, even with a Democratic majority in both sides of Congress, you still have to fight the intricacies of politics and divides within your own party over issues.
|
On January 19 2012 06:32 nam nam wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 06:27 Hider wrote:On January 19 2012 06:24 Eppa! wrote:On January 19 2012 06:14 Hider wrote:On January 19 2012 06:11 Elegy wrote:On January 19 2012 06:03 Hider wrote:
If i admit I am gay should I still be allowed to get any kind of job (given my qualificans are up to pair) even though the boss's dont like gay people. Is it a human right for me to get a job, and should their opinions of gay people be disallowed by law?
If no, whats the difference between being accepted into military and job in private sector. Is it because every government job should be allowed for everbody? ... Gays couldn't serve openly because they were gay. One's sexual orientation should be irrelevant when it comes to determining suitability for employment. It is perfectly fine (though regrettable) that people dislike homosexuals simply because of their orientation, but that dislike cannot be codified into law, which it most certainly was under DADT. Denying one's service merely because they enjoy a different sexual preference is discrimination and cannot be lawful. But there weren't any law that denied them acces to military? The military bosses just disliked them, right? And should we through force make it illegal for bosses in private companies and government instituions to dislike some minorities and make them worse of? If a racist opens a new company, and dont want to hire a black man, should he be put in prison? No laws are absolute. They are based on moral values of the majority (or in some cases the bourgeois) So yes in Sweden if a person doesn't hire a person based on the colour of their skin they are breaking the law. Yes i know that. But I think i can go on and on and make more extreme examples and then conclude why this law is just bad (ppl should be allowed to be racist IMO). But im not gonna go into this kind of discussion (read above). By that logic, you would be ok with universities not allowing black people to go to their school?
As I said im not gonna go into this dicussion. ANyway my last answer. Yes in theory. But genereally eveyrthing become problematic when governement controls stuffs, as they are no longer profit driven. This means that they perhaps dont care about losing the money that black students can give them, and hence racism isn't hurting their financials. Then one could argue that we would better off with regulations. This is kinda the same dilemmas as we see in financial markets, where theo nly reason why regulations are needed is because governent is fucking the markets. Without governments markets would be much more sound.
|
United States6959 Posts
On January 19 2012 06:43 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 06:32 nam nam wrote:On January 19 2012 06:27 Hider wrote:On January 19 2012 06:24 Eppa! wrote:On January 19 2012 06:14 Hider wrote:On January 19 2012 06:11 Elegy wrote:On January 19 2012 06:03 Hider wrote:
If i admit I am gay should I still be allowed to get any kind of job (given my qualificans are up to pair) even though the boss's dont like gay people. Is it a human right for me to get a job, and should their opinions of gay people be disallowed by law?
If no, whats the difference between being accepted into military and job in private sector. Is it because every government job should be allowed for everbody? ... Gays couldn't serve openly because they were gay. One's sexual orientation should be irrelevant when it comes to determining suitability for employment. It is perfectly fine (though regrettable) that people dislike homosexuals simply because of their orientation, but that dislike cannot be codified into law, which it most certainly was under DADT. Denying one's service merely because they enjoy a different sexual preference is discrimination and cannot be lawful. But there weren't any law that denied them acces to military? The military bosses just disliked them, right? And should we through force make it illegal for bosses in private companies and government instituions to dislike some minorities and make them worse of? If a racist opens a new company, and dont want to hire a black man, should he be put in prison? No laws are absolute. They are based on moral values of the majority (or in some cases the bourgeois) So yes in Sweden if a person doesn't hire a person based on the colour of their skin they are breaking the law. Yes i know that. But I think i can go on and on and make more extreme examples and then conclude why this law is just bad (ppl should be allowed to be racist IMO). But im not gonna go into this kind of discussion (read above). By that logic, you would be ok with universities not allowing black people to go to their school? As I said im not gonna go into this dicussion. ANyway my last answer. Yes in theory. But genereally eveyrthing become problematic when governement controls stuffs, as they are no longer profit driven. This means that they perhaps dont care about losing the money that black students can give them, and hence racism isn't hurting their financials. Then one could argue that we would better off with regulations. This is kinda the same dilemmas as we see in financial markets, where theo nly reason why regulations are needed is because governent is fucking the markets. Without governments markets would be much more sound.
Have you ever studied American history? Hell, even the history of the Industrial Revolution in general?
|
On January 19 2012 06:42 Rob28 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 06:35 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 19 2012 06:03 Hider wrote:
If i admit I am gay should I still be allowed to get any kind of job (given my qualificans are up to pair) even though the boss's dont like gay people. Is it a human right for me to get a job, and should their opinions of gay people be disallowed by law?
If no, whats the difference between being accepted into military and job in private sector. Is it because every government job should be allowed for everbody? The military is a government organization, the private sector is, by definition and name, the private sector. Yes, the government should and does have a responsibility to make sure all of its positions are completely non-discriminatory. This is an incredibly basic concept. ^ Pretty much this. Military is public sector (ie. salaries are paid with public tax dollars). Last I checked, gay people paid taxes too, and so are entitled to have equal opportunities to work in the public sector.
Hmm yeh perhaps. Anyway what if your very weak. Perhaps pretty sick, can barely lift anything. But you pay taxes. Should you be allowed acces?
What if the military boss denies acces to "your" kind of people. And he also dislikes gays as he has prejudices and think that they are worse soldiers. Is he allowed to have the first policy but not the second?
And I guess your arguments would be based on the fact that in the first example there is a physical reason why you sohuldn't enter the military, and in situation 2 its based on prejudices.
Hyphoteitical situation: Now what if a survey (a very good one, every statistican agrees this is the truth), shows that gays are on average much worse soldiers than nongays. Actually they are 50% worse (assuming we can quantify that number).
Weak physical people like you are in average 50% worse soldiers as well.
Does the above change your opinion?
Btw if weak physical kinda sick ppl still are allowed to get into military, lets make them even weaker (like have one arm only or whatever).
|
On January 19 2012 06:45 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 06:43 Hider wrote:On January 19 2012 06:32 nam nam wrote:On January 19 2012 06:27 Hider wrote:On January 19 2012 06:24 Eppa! wrote:On January 19 2012 06:14 Hider wrote:On January 19 2012 06:11 Elegy wrote:On January 19 2012 06:03 Hider wrote:
If i admit I am gay should I still be allowed to get any kind of job (given my qualificans are up to pair) even though the boss's dont like gay people. Is it a human right for me to get a job, and should their opinions of gay people be disallowed by law?
If no, whats the difference between being accepted into military and job in private sector. Is it because every government job should be allowed for everbody? ... Gays couldn't serve openly because they were gay. One's sexual orientation should be irrelevant when it comes to determining suitability for employment. It is perfectly fine (though regrettable) that people dislike homosexuals simply because of their orientation, but that dislike cannot be codified into law, which it most certainly was under DADT. Denying one's service merely because they enjoy a different sexual preference is discrimination and cannot be lawful. But there weren't any law that denied them acces to military? The military bosses just disliked them, right? And should we through force make it illegal for bosses in private companies and government instituions to dislike some minorities and make them worse of? If a racist opens a new company, and dont want to hire a black man, should he be put in prison? No laws are absolute. They are based on moral values of the majority (or in some cases the bourgeois) So yes in Sweden if a person doesn't hire a person based on the colour of their skin they are breaking the law. Yes i know that. But I think i can go on and on and make more extreme examples and then conclude why this law is just bad (ppl should be allowed to be racist IMO). But im not gonna go into this kind of discussion (read above). By that logic, you would be ok with universities not allowing black people to go to their school? As I said im not gonna go into this dicussion. ANyway my last answer. Yes in theory. But genereally eveyrthing become problematic when governement controls stuffs, as they are no longer profit driven. This means that they perhaps dont care about losing the money that black students can give them, and hence racism isn't hurting their financials. Then one could argue that we would better off with regulations. This is kinda the same dilemmas as we see in financial markets, where theo nly reason why regulations are needed is because governent is fucking the markets. Without governments markets would be much more sound. Have you ever studied American history? Hell, even the history of the Industrial Revolution in general?
I guess you want to tell me something where you are going to rewrite history. Just continue.
|
On January 19 2012 06:42 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 06:21 allecto wrote:On January 19 2012 04:46 Mohdoo wrote:
Getting rid of families going backrupt from pre-existing medical conditions, allowing gays to serve openly in the military, and doing his best to keep Republicans from outlawing birth control are all good things he's done. I don't like a lot of what he's done, but he's done some good. stem cell research, student loan reform, credit card reform, financial reform
He's not my perfect president, far from it. But its only fair to give credit where due that I believe I would have vastly preferred him over a Republican. Student loan reform, financial reform? I'd say he hasn't done much of that...what did he do, make it so you could reduce your interest rate by a couple of bips? The real problem with student loans is the inability to declare bankruptcy on them and that was completely ignored by Obama. When will people understand that the President of the U.S. can't introduce any kind of legislation? He can only influence members of Congress to do so, and when you have the Republican party being so incredibly uncooperative and straight up unhelpful since they took a majority in the House, you can't really do a whole lot. It's basically been the Republican philosophy to say "Fuck you Obama" since they got elected, doing absolutely nothing to actually help the people. I mean really, when the GOP's number one goal for this election is to make sure Obama won't be re-elected, that says volumes about its failure to focus on its actual job. The GOP is an embarrassment to American politics. Not only this, even with a Democratic majority in both sides of Congress, you still have to fight the intricacies of politics and divides within your own party over issues.
I don't see why this matters. I was just saying that he didn't really introduce meaningful student loan reform or financial reform, which is a true statement. Now something that Obama could have done was bring the troops home earlier like he promised, but didn't follow through with, and actually wanted to keep them in Iraq longer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
