| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Courthead
United States246 Posts
On July 26 2012 16:15 Azzur wrote: It's double standards to be in favour of one-form of discrimination but to be against another That's the most ridiculous thing anyone has ever said on the entire internet. That's like saying it's a double standard to like one type of ice cream but not another. It's a double standard to be against the Holocaust unless you're also pro-Nazi. Etc. Absolutely ridiculous. | ||
|
Ryuu314
United States12679 Posts
| ||
|
Cel.erity
United States4890 Posts
On July 26 2012 16:12 Ryuu314 wrote: Unless I'm mistaken and have missed a critical recent SCOTUS case, sexuality is not a "protected class" like race, creed, etc... Things are only considered (illegal) discrimination in the eyes of the law if they're targeting a protected class, of which sexuality is not one (yet). This is done so that people can't sue based on stupid things like discrimination against stupidity, lack of skill, etc... Whether it's illegal or not isn't relevant to my argument. | ||
|
Diglett
600 Posts
On July 26 2012 16:07 Cel.erity wrote: These types of arguments are not even slightly intelligent. It is not discriminatory (in any way other than semantically) to abhor the decisions and opinions that other people have. It is discriminatory to abhor a person for something that is natural for them, like their skin color, mental deficiencies, or sexuality. If you want to argue the semantic definition of discrimination, then fine, saying that I hate homophobes and racists is discrimination. But it is a positive discrimination and not a negative one. dunno how you define discrimination but i am uncomfortable it. in your example it just seems one type of discrimination seems more morally cool. can you elaborate? | ||
|
Courthead
United States246 Posts
On July 26 2012 16:25 Diglett wrote: dunno how you define discrimination but i am uncomfortable it. in your example it just seems one type of discrimination seems more morally cool. can you elaborate? Do you think it should be legal to not hire someone because they're black? No. That would be unfair discrimination. Do you think it should be legal to not hire someone because they're a Nazi? Of course. That's fair discrimination. | ||
|
Azzur
Australia6253 Posts
On July 26 2012 16:20 Courthead wrote: That's the most ridiculous thing anyone has ever said on the entire internet. That's like saying it's a double standard to like one type of ice cream but not another. It's a double standard to be against the Holocaust unless you're also pro-Nazi. Etc. Absolutely ridiculous. It's pretty easy to see that someone is losing the argument when they resort of words like ridiculous. Last time I checked, discrimination doesn't include ice-cream preferences, but it does include "political views". You have clearly shown that "political views discrimination" doesn't apply to views that are different from yours. In case you start going off in tangents, I'll state that these political views obviously have to be within the law. | ||
|
Tachion
Canada8573 Posts
On July 26 2012 16:29 Azzur wrote: It's pretty easy to see that someone is losing the argument when they resort of words like ridiculous. Last time I checked, discrimination doesn't include ice-cream preferences, but it does include "political views". You have clearly shown that "political views discrimination" doesn't apply to views that are different from yours. In case you start going off in tangents, I'll state that these political views obviously have to be within the law. If I say black people can't get married I'm a racist bigot. If I say gay people can't get married it's a "political view". disgusting. | ||
|
Tewks44
United States2032 Posts
| ||
|
hpty603
United States262 Posts
User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
NEEDZMOAR
Sweden1277 Posts
On July 26 2012 06:01 Zaqwert wrote: Good to see someone gets it. I'm pro-free speech, unless someone says something I don't agree with, shut those people up! I'm anti-discrimination, unless I don't like the people being discriminated against, screw them! etc. Government policy should not be based on your own personal beliefs and preferences. well isnt being anti gay marriage discrimination? so if you let an anti-gay organization establish in your city, it basically means that you support anti-gay marriage. | ||
|
Tewks44
United States2032 Posts
On July 26 2012 16:38 NEEDZMOAR wrote: well isnt being anti gay marriage discrimination? so if you let an anti-gay organization establish in your city, it basically means that you support anti-gay marriage. I wouldn't say that. Oreos has come out as being pro-gay. Does this mean if you have a city which sells oreos you support gay marriage? What if the city sells Oreos and has a Chik Fila? You can't simply say an individual "supports" a movement because a business with a particular stance is active in his/her city. | ||
|
Azzur
Australia6253 Posts
On July 26 2012 16:38 NEEDZMOAR wrote: well isnt being anti gay marriage discrimination? so if you let an anti-gay organization establish in your city, it basically means that you support anti-gay marriage. Discrimination is to use someone's preferences against them when making decisions (e.g. hiring). It's ok to have a viewpoint but it's not ok to use it in a discriminatory manner. You've created a strawman argument, you've equated allowing an anti-gay organization to equal supporting anti-gay. Rather, allowing an anti-gay organization is allowing freedom of speech. | ||
|
Azzur
Australia6253 Posts
On July 26 2012 16:33 Tachion wrote: If I say black people can't get married I'm a racist bigot. If I say gay people can't get married it's a "political view". disgusting. If you have a problem with it, argue with your local politicians to get things changed - right now, it's a "political view", whether you like it or not. | ||
|
TOloseGT
United States1145 Posts
On July 26 2012 16:04 dvorakftw wrote: God I hate insomnia. At least when GSL isn't on. The article was to show Wal Mart is not "banned" in Seattle. You want numbers? http://www2.newsadvance.com/business/2011/jan/24/appomattox-economy-boosted-walmart-hurt-upcoming-l-ar-790871/ The Walmart undoubtedly played a role in the county’s overall sales increase, he said. The county had $23.5 million in taxable sales in the third quarter of 2010, a report from the Virginia Department of Taxation shows. That was a 24 percent increase over the $18.9 million sales in the third quarter of 2009. Monthly tax records show that the county’s sales tax receipts jumped $20,000 when Walmart opened in May. http://articles.marketwatch.com/2005-11-04/news/30748393_1_wal-mart-stores-grocery-store-industry-lower-prices "Yes there is disruption in the retail sector," he said. "Wal-Mart does displace other employment, but overall has a stimulative effect on overall county employment. ... Wal-Mart's growth over the 1985 to 2004 period was related to a cumulative decline of 9.1% in food prices, a 4.2% drop in prices of commodities and a 3.1% decrease in overall consumer prices as measured by the consumer price index, the study found. The cumulative savings from lower prices amounted to $895 per person by 2004 for a total of $263 billion, Holling said. ... Efficiency gains in the economy totaled 0.75% in the 20 years studied. ... Wal-Mart has been a plus for job creation, according to the study, generating 210,000 jobs by 2004, a 0.15% increase that would not have existed but for Wal-Mart. http://jamesdshaw.wordpress.com/2012/06/22/does-living-near-a-walmart-boost-your-homes-value/ [T]wo University economists (Devin Pope at University of Chicago and Jaren Pope at BYU) looked at 1 million real estate sales near 159 new WalMart stores that opened between 2000 and 2006. They found that homes within a half mile saw a $7,000 increase in value and that homes a half mile to a mile away saw a $4,000 increase after the store opened. A. For Wal-Mart supercenter stores in Mississippi: http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/faculty/stone/mssupercenterstudy.pdf "...There is a strong sense that the zero-sum-game theory applies in the case of supercenters in Mississippi." (p. 25) "...the net increases are minimal as the new big box stores merely capture sales from existing businesses in the area." (p. 25) As for existing merchants, their research indicates that merchants who sell the same type of stuff sold in Wal-Mart will face losses. (p. 26) B. Additional research into newly opened Wal-Mart stores and there effect on the local economy: http://www.ag-econ.ncsu.edu/VIRTUAL_LIBRARY/ECONOMIST/novdec05.pdf For every 100 jobs created by Wal-Mart, 50 retail and 20 wholesale jobs could be lost. Add that with losses in local legal, accounting, insurance jobs, and other white collar jobs that prop up local business. The reason is because "Wal-Mart keeps these types of services in-house," meaning they're supplied from Wal-Mart HQ, and not from local firms. (p. 2) "Wal-Mart jobs tend to be significantly lower paying than comparable retail sector jobs." (p. 2) C. Costs: http://aede.osu.edu/sites/drupal-aede.web/files/Irwin_Clark-WalMart_Final_03_06.pdf "In California, Wal-Mart employees use an estimated 38% more in public assistance programs than the average for families of all large-store retail employees." (p. 9) Wal-Mart imports disproportionately more than the industry average for large retailers. (p. 10) D. Correlation between Wal-Mart and lower voter turnout, lol: http://nercrd.psu.edu/bigboxes/walmartandsocialcapital2.pdf | ||
|
Evangelist
1246 Posts
That is bigotry. When you defend their free speech, you defend the right of racists to state they want a white only state AND their right to ensure it remains law. Think for a second, people. | ||
|
Kaiyotic
United States90 Posts
Failing that, gay sit-ins at Chick-Fil-A, a la Greensboro sit-ins ^^ | ||
|
Tewks44
United States2032 Posts
On July 26 2012 17:06 Kaiyotic wrote: I feel like the courts would be a better place to bring this up, though you'd have to see what you'd bring against them; shouldn't be hard considering their social stance is incorporated into their corporate policy Failing that, gay sit-ins at Chick-Fil-A, a la Greensboro sit-ins ^^ I'm from Greensboro  sorry, I know that's a waste of a post but I couldn't help myself | ||
|
DrTJEckleburg
United States1080 Posts
| ||
|
Ryhzuo
New Zealand198 Posts
On July 26 2012 17:14 DrTJEckleburg wrote: As a business man I've always been taught that you can believe whatever you want but no matter what business and politics/religion need to be separated. Pretty basic. I have to agree with this. People are free to believe whatever things they want. But when they start bringing these things into business, and more importantly start affecting others with their beliefs then something has gone wrong. | ||
|
GwSC
United States1997 Posts
On July 26 2012 16:54 Evangelist wrote: Freedom of speech is fine provided it doesn't intervene with someone's basic rights under the law. Gay marriage has significant tax benefits and legal rights which are denied on the basis of a persons sexuality. That is bigotry. When you defend their free speech, you defend the right of racists to state they want a white only state AND their right to ensure it remains law. Think for a second, people. Huh? Defending their free speech means you are defending their right to voice their beliefs, and that is it. I really don't understand how you made that leap. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games Organizations Other Games StarCraft 2 Other Games StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War |
|
Replay Cast
Clem vs Zoun
Wardi Open
Monday Night Weeklies
PiGosaur Monday
Replay Cast
SOOP
SKillous vs Spirit
Tenacious Turtle Tussle
The PondCast
Replay Cast
Korean StarCraft League
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
