Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

We support equality except at work!Follow

#52 Nov 07 2013 at 2:56 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,767 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Again, it's an argument that I understand and it's not that complicated. It just also happens to be one that I emphatically disagree with and illustrates why I vote on the blue side of the ticket.


Except you don't. Not in all cases. That's what I'm trying to get at. Where is the line where the freedom to discriminate is ok versus where it is not? All choices are discrimination. I guess I'm trying to get you to define some kind of criteria that differentiates forms of discrimination that are ok and those which are not. How do you decide that it's ok to refuse to hire an alcoholic, but not ok to refuse to hire a homosexual? I assume you think it's ok to discriminate when hiring on the basis of work experience? Why? Why is that not a violation of the right of the potential worker?

You're getting caught up in the specifics of this one case and really not seeing the bigger issue I'm getting at. Discrimination is not always wrong. It can't always be wrong. But it seems like many people selectively choose to pretend it is when discussing specific instances of discrimination. And to me, that appears to be an attempt to avoid making the argument for that specific instance. You fall back on "discrimination is wrong!" instead. But that's clearly not the case. We allow discrimination most of the time. The cases where discrimination is wrong are actually the exception and not the rule. So isn't it important to actually make the argument for why this one case should also be an exception?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#53 Nov 07 2013 at 3:04 PM Rating: Excellent
******
27,272 posts
gbaji wrote:
How do you decide that it's ok to refuse to hire an alcoholic, but not ok to refuse to hire a homosexual?
Are you actually retarded or just pretending?
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#54 Nov 07 2013 at 3:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Except you don't. Not in all cases.

You're right: I rate discrimination against homosexuals differently than discrimination against felons or discrimination against people who like Rob Schneider movies.

You found me out. It's true. And, no, I don't feel the need to try to explain to you why I don't weigh them the same. You think that's some win? Fine, call it a win. You win the purity of the party that accepts this discrimination ("for liberty!") and I have to settle for the guys who don't. Poor me, huh?

Edited, Nov 7th 2013 3:07pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#55 Nov 07 2013 at 3:11 PM Rating: Excellent
At the very least Gbaji, you can eliminate almost all of your laughable examples on the basis of choice.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#56 Nov 07 2013 at 3:20 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,899 posts
gbaji wrote:
How do you decide that it's ok to refuse to hire an alcoholic, but not ok to refuse to hire a homosexual?
Alcoholic? Smiley: dubious

So like is there a criminal record with multiple instances of alcohol-related arrests, or just someone writing "I liek beer" on their facebook thingy?
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#57 Nov 07 2013 at 3:21 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,767 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Except you don't. Not in all cases.

You're right: I rate discrimination against homosexuals differently than discrimination against felons or discrimination against people who like Rob Schneider movies.


Why?

Quote:
And, no, I don't feel the need to try to explain to you why I don't weigh them the same.


Why not? Isn't that the core of the issue? You believe that some discrimination is ok, but others are not, but you're utterly unwilling or unable to say why? Isn't that insane? Shouldn't that be a problem? How do you make decisions?

Quote:
You think that's some win? Fine, call it a win.


Yes, I do. Because if you can't explain why you make a decision like that, then your decision is more or less arbitrary and can be safely ignored. And if we were talking about your inability to explain how you choose which color socks to wear, no one would care. But in this case, we're talking about how we decide which classes of people are granted a special constitutional (civil rights) exemption. It's a sufficiently big deal that it maybe deserves a bit more thought than you seem to be giving it.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#58 Nov 07 2013 at 3:23 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,767 posts
I find it telling that while several people have responded with various degrees of scorn, dismissal, and derision, not one person has actually been able to answer the somewhat important question I asked.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#59 Nov 07 2013 at 3:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,899 posts
gbaji wrote:
I find it telling that while several people have responded with various degrees of scorn, dismissal, and derision, not one person has actually been able to answer the somewhat important question I asked.
Well I was trying to, but what do you mean by alcoholic? There's a difference between someone who has a history of causing alcohol-related problems both in and out of the workplace and someone who has a few too many beers.

Floating around with some concept of "proven potential dangers to workplace, productivity, society, and such," but haven't really teased it out yet. Smiley: tongue

Yeah something like that. Smiley: rolleyes

Edited, Nov 7th 2013 1:39pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#60 Nov 07 2013 at 3:56 PM Rating: Excellent
I responded with a very simple reason, not my fault you ignored it.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#61 Nov 07 2013 at 4:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,706 posts
Jophiel wrote:
ENDA passed the Senate today with all Democrats voting for it plus ten Republicans.
Roll Call wrote:
Republicans voting for the bill included Sens. Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, Susan Collins of Maine, Jeff Flake of Arizona, Orrin G. Hatch of Utah, Dean Heller of Nevada, Mark Kirk of Illinois, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Patrick J. Toomey of Pennsylvania, Rob Portman of Ohio and John McCain of Arizona.
Wow, 2 Arizona Senators. Better to be *** than an immigrant.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#62 Nov 07 2013 at 4:22 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,767 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I find it telling that while several people have responded with various degrees of scorn, dismissal, and derision, not one person has actually been able to answer the somewhat important question I asked.
Well I was trying to, but what do you mean by alcoholic? There's a difference between someone who has a history of causing alcohol-related problems both in and out of the workplace and someone who has a few too many beers.


It's not about whether someone's an alcoholic, or how we determine that. You're missing the forest for the trees. It could be the color shirt someone wears, or whether they like boxers or briefs, or wear a hat. It's not about the specific case, but about what criteria you use to determine which cases are ok and which aren't.

Is is ok for me to refuse to hire people based on the color of their eyes? Assuming no direct correlation to race is involved, this doesn't violate the civil rights laws of this country, right? How about the size of someone's hands? Or feet? Hair length? Height? Weight? It's not about the specific criteria, but how we decide which criteria is "ok" to discriminate based on, and which aren't? I'm asking for a non-circular criteria for this (so "because that's discrimination", or "that would violate someone's rights" isn't a good answer). Why do some forms of discrimination violate someone's rights sufficiently to justify prohibiting them, but others do not? And if it is truly arbitrary, then is there really a morality issue involved at all? And if there isn't an absolute morality issue involved, then are we wrong to demonize people simply because they disagree with our completely arbitrary decision?


That's where I'm going with this.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#63 Nov 07 2013 at 4:25 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,767 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
At the very least Gbaji, you can eliminate almost all of your laughable examples on the basis of choice.


Sir Xsarus wrote:
I responded with a very simple reason, not my fault you ignored it.


Er? That's the only post in this thread by you I could find and it does not come remotely close to answering the question I asked. Did I miss a post somewhere?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#64 Nov 07 2013 at 4:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,899 posts
gbaji wrote:
Is is ok for me to refuse to hire people based on the color of their eyes? Assuming no direct correlation to race is involved, this doesn't violate the civil rights laws of this country, right? How about the size of someone's hands? Or feet? Hair length? Height? Weight? It's not about the specific criteria, but how we decide which criteria is "ok" to discriminate based on, and which aren't? I'm asking for a non-circular criteria for this (so "because that's discrimination", or "that would violate someone's rights" isn't a good answer). Why do some forms of discrimination violate someone's rights sufficiently to justify prohibiting them, but others do not? And if it is truly arbitrary, then is there really a morality issue involved at all? And if there isn't an absolute morality issue involved, then are we wrong to demonize people simply because they disagree with our completely arbitrary decision?


someproteinguy wrote:
proven potential dangers to workplace, productivity, society, and such


Outside of a BFOQ or something, of course.

We can say past criminal behavior is part of that, or poor workplace performance, etc. Other criteria are kinda goofy though yes? Not good for business anyway. I mean it's not like being *** makes you a poor worker. Maybe angrily arguing with your customers about them not accepting your lifestyle, but that's a general-purpose angrily arguing with customers is bad thing.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#65 Nov 07 2013 at 4:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Why not?

You confuse me not wanting to spend the time explaining to you with me having no reasons or thought behind it. I'm under no illusions that you'll ever say "Well, that makes sense" and, in fact, have spent numerous conversations with you where you repeatedly insist that no one has explained something that was in fact explained time after time after time.

Quote:
Because if you can't explain why you make a decision like that, then your decision is more or less arbitrary and can be safely ignored.

Again, I'm okay with you ignoring my opinion on this. It doesn't hurt my feelings that Gbaji thinks my reasons for thinking that workplace discrimination against homosexuals aren't good enough. It doesn't worry me if you think I have no reasons and I was brainwashed or tricked or mass media indoctrinated me or whatever. I'm okay with that. I merely said that the GOP response (or, more pointedly your explanation for the GOP response and opinions by those such as Rep & Sen Paul(s)) reminded me why I don't vote Republican. Your repeated responses seem to indicate that you're more upset about my opinions on this than I am about yours.



Edited, Nov 7th 2013 4:41pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#66 Nov 07 2013 at 6:04 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,436 posts
Where is the line where the freedom to discriminate is ok versus where it is not?

Race, color, religion, ***, national origin, political affiliation, sexual orientation, age, gender, gender identity, marital status, pregnancy, national origin/ancestry, citizenship, physical/mental disability, military status, disability and genetic information, age, membership in an Associate organization.

It's fairly well codified what society considers unacceptable discrimination. Sexual orientation in the past hasn't been considered one of those things, it is now. I'm sure this is understandably confusing to you, stuck in 1984. Trust me, it gets better. You'll be ok.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#67 Nov 07 2013 at 7:33 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,017 posts
gbaji wrote:
I find it telling that while several people have responded with various degrees of scorn, dismissal, and derision, not one person has actually been able to answer the somewhat important question I asked.
I find it telling that you associate homosexuals and black people to pedophiles and felons.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#68 Nov 07 2013 at 7:36 PM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
You're right: I rate discrimination against homosexuals differently than discrimination against felons or discrimination against people who like Rob Schneider movies.
Why?
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that it's because Jophiel isn't an elitist, privileged, bigoted douche.


Just a guess, though.
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#69 Nov 07 2013 at 8:38 PM Rating: Good
******
21,717 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
You're right: I rate discrimination against homosexuals differently than discrimination against felons or discrimination against people who like Rob Schneider movies.
Why?
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that it's because Jophiel isn't an elitist, privileged, bigoted douche.


Just a guess, though.

You can have it fast, good, or cheap. Pick 2.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#70 Nov 07 2013 at 9:04 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,767 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Where is the line where the freedom to discriminate is ok versus where it is not?

Race, color, religion, ***, national origin, political affiliation, sexual orientation, age, gender, gender identity, marital status, pregnancy, national origin/ancestry, citizenship, physical/mental disability, military status, disability and genetic information, age, membership in an Associate organization.

It's fairly well codified what society considers unacceptable discrimination. Sexual orientation in the past hasn't been considered one of those things, it is now.


This is precisely the circular answer I said wasn't valid (but predicted that most people could not avoid, so thanks for being typical). You basically just said that the criteria for characteristics we protect from discrimination is whatever we've written into our laws to be protected from discrimination. Which is completely circular.

I'm asking what criteria we use to decide what the law should say. The fact that this is so hard for most people to even attempt to answer should be telling.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#71 Nov 07 2013 at 9:08 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,767 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I find it telling that while several people have responded with various degrees of scorn, dismissal, and derision, not one person has actually been able to answer the somewhat important question I asked.
I find it telling that you associate homosexuals and black people to pedophiles and felons.


I find it telling that you focus on those comparisons while ignoring all the others I listed like people who are short, tall, fat, skinny, have long hair, any given eye color, big hands, wear a given type or color of clothes, etc. I'm not making *any* specific comparison. I'm asking people to actually expend a bit of brain power and ask themselves why they accept some forms of discrimination and not others. And it's interesting how uncomfortable this makes most of you.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#72 Nov 07 2013 at 9:21 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
The fact that this is so hard for most people to even attempt to answer should be telling.

It is "hard to answer" because it's a complex question. You want a pithy simple soundbite answer because that's the easiest for you to live with -- just like "Marriage is for kids!" is easier to compartmentalize than the complex realities of marriage law over the years.

One could suggest that you, for example, look through the testimony and hearings about previous discrimination laws and those surrounding ENDA and read for yourself what criteria are being used but since you still cling to "Marriage is for kids!", I don't have any hopes that you'd put that sort of effort into this topic either.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#73 Nov 07 2013 at 9:22 PM Rating: Good
******
44,017 posts
gbaji wrote:
I'm asking people to actually expend a bit of brain power and ask themselves why they accept some forms of discrimination and not others. And it's interesting how uncomfortable this makes most of you.
It's kind of sad that your best attempt at deep thought discussion is basically infantile naysaying. It is kind of adorable you think you make anyone uncomfortable though. I guess it really is no wonder you're a button pusher and not an actual thinker. But I digress, keep insisting how being left handed is totally the same as being a convicted serial arsonist.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#74 Nov 07 2013 at 9:28 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I find it telling that you focus on those comparisons while ignoring all the others I listed like people who are short, tall, fat, skinny, have long hair, any given eye color, big hands, wear a given type or color of clothes, etc.


...

gbaji wrote:
I could go in the other direction and mock someone whose faith says that a @#%^phile can't be a clerk in their store. There's no objective absolute right and wrong here.
gbaji wrote:
At one point in time, homosexuality was considered aberrant sexual behavior and was illegal, just as @#%^philia is considered aberrant sexual behavior and is illegal today. We cannot therefore assume that at some point in the future, there wont be a group of forward thinking progressive people on an internet forum bashing backwards thinking conservative people because even though we've finally realized that *** with children isn't aberrant
gbaji wrote:
the owner of Chick-fil-a decides that in keeping with his businesses principles regarding the morality of its workers, and his own personal belief that homosexuality is sinful, that he cannot allow openly *** workers to be employed at his business since this would be a contradiction (how can he claim to be promoting morality when he's employing people who engage in immoral behavior?). To him, this is no more discriminatory than saying that he will not hire drug addicts, or felons, or anyone else who engages in behavior that he believes is not representative of the standards he believes in.
gbaji wrote:
So we're free to choose whether we want to hire people who are drug users, but not free to choose whether we want to hire people who engage in same *** relations


But yeah, there was also the one post you made where you picked criteria that weren't child molesters or substance abusers so go you Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#75 Nov 07 2013 at 9:40 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,767 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The fact that this is so hard for most people to even attempt to answer should be telling.

It is "hard to answer" because it's a complex question. You want a pithy simple soundbite answer because that's the easiest for you to live with -- just like "Marriage is for kids!" is easier to compartmentalize than the complex realities of marriage law over the years.


And yet, conservatives have no problems providing those complex explanations and arguments for their positions, while it seems to almost be a staple of liberal thought to avoid this at all costs in favor of the emotional response approach.

You're free to disagree with them, but the libertarian who says that he believes the infringement of liberty is not justified in this case is a completely valid and logical argument. And when asked, he'll talk at length about how liberty is affected, how discrimination is an inherent part of liberty, and how there's no evidence that this specific discrimination is sufficiently harmful to the population in question to require adding it to the protected list. And if pressed, he might contrast this to other groups who could demonstrably be shown to be harmed as a result of similar discrimination.

Can you show me statistics that *** people as a whole suffer economically because we don't have laws prohibiting employers from discriminating against them on the basis of their homosexuality? Not "one person is harmed", but "the group as a whole is statistically worse off". Because we can show these kinds of statistics historically when we look at gender discrimination, or racial discrimination, or religious discrimination. Add this to a conservatives inherent opposition to adding more laws without need, and the position on this issue makes a **** of a lot of sense.


Quote:
One could suggest that you, for example, look through the testimony and hearings about previous discrimination laws and those surrounding ENDA and read for yourself what criteria are being used but since you still cling to "Marriage is for kids!", I don't have any hopes that you'd put that sort of effort into this topic either.


I have. Have you? I've been trying to get you guys to do this all thread long. So many people have responded with a knee jerk assumption that discrimination against homosexuals is no different than discrimination against blacks, or women, but I'm trying to get them to actually assess if this is really true. I think they are completely different. Outside of just "being discrimination" (which I've already argued and I hope we all agree is not wrong all by itself), all we have is an arbitrary decision to include this group in that category which requires protection. I don't believe that there's actual good demonstrable data to support that assumption though.


Do you think there is? It's what I'm trying to get you to look at. Don't assume it is because that's what you've been told. And don't assume it is because you've been told anyone who doesn't think so is "bad". Actually look at the data. Find me data that shows that this is such a great problem in our society and that homosexuals suffer a massive statistical inability to obtain gainful employment that this law must be enacted. It's not there, is it? This isn't about addressing a problem. It's about creating a wedge and coming up with yet another bogus issue that can be used to paint the rational people in our society (that's conservatives btw) as "bad" by encouraging people to act on emotion rather than reason.


And *that's* why I don't vote Democrat.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#76 Nov 07 2013 at 9:55 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,899 posts
Linky?

To be fair we should point out the discrimination wasn't found in all states. Texas has some explaining to do though. Smiley: disappointed

Edited, Nov 7th 2013 7:57pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#77 Nov 07 2013 at 9:59 PM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:
And *that's* why I don't vote Democrat.

Because being an elitist, privileged, bigoted douche is what the GOP is all about.

Again, thanks for the absolute confirmation of your zeal for and dedication to ******* all over anyone you want because that's the right of every American!!


Oops, I meant the right of every *conservative*; my bad.
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#78 Nov 07 2013 at 10:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,643 posts
I thought it had been explained a number of times that discrimination against felons, alcoholics, and drug addicts causes great risk to the financial viability of a company and are therefore considered justifiable discrimination, while discrimination against race, ***, creed, sexual orientation is not a risk towards the financial viability of a company and therefore is not justifiable discrimination.
#79 Nov 07 2013 at 10:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
And yet, conservatives have no problems providing those complex explanations and arguments for their positions

Right. Which is why you're jumping up and down and demanding little soundbite criteria.
Quote:
I have.

No, you haven't.
Quote:
And *that's* why I don't vote Democrat.

No one is upset about that, trust me Smiley: laugh

Edited, Nov 7th 2013 10:10pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#80 Nov 07 2013 at 10:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,899 posts
Belkira wrote:
I thought it had been explained a number of times that discrimination against felons, alcoholics, and drug addicts causes great risk to the financial viability of a company and are therefore considered justifiable discrimination, while discrimination against race, ***, creed, sexual orientation is not a risk towards the financial viability of a company and therefore is not justifiable discrimination.
It doesn't count unless Joph says it. Smiley: rolleyes

Edited, Nov 7th 2013 8:47pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#81 Nov 07 2013 at 11:31 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,473 posts
Speaking of being ***.




(i know its old but relevant none the less.)



Edited, Nov 8th 2013 12:32am by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#82 Nov 08 2013 at 6:30 AM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
29,436 posts

This is precisely the circular answer I said wasn't valid (but predicted that most people could not avoid, so thanks for being typical). You basically just said that the criteria for characteristics we protect from discrimination is whatever we've written into our laws to be protected from discrimination. Which is completely circular.


Yes, and arbitrary. All laws are arbitrary. All societies function based on a set of completely arbitrary rules. Prohibition against murder? Arbitrary. There's no logical case for it that doesn't equally apply to equal protection for *** people. Also there is no Santa. This was your big reveal? Seriously? Your "gotcha" moment was that there is no magic natural law decree that articulates statutory protection for *** folks? Seriously? Wait, you don't ACTUALLY think that argument makes some sort of negative case against equal protection, do you? No one could really be that deluded, could they?
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#83 Nov 08 2013 at 6:54 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,078 posts
gbaji wrote:

And *that's* why I don't vote Democrat.
the gbaji jingle
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#84 Nov 08 2013 at 7:26 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,706 posts
gbaji wrote:
It's about creating a wedge and coming up with yet another bogus issue that can be used to paint the rational people in our society (that's conservatives btw) as "bad" by encouraging people to act on emotion rather than reason.
Not hiring someone because your religion says gays are bad is based on reason and not emotion?
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#85 Nov 08 2013 at 7:57 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Smasharoo wrote:
Wait, you don't ACTUALLY think that argument makes some sort of negative case against equal protection, do you? No one could really be that deluded, could they?

"But, Gee Wilikers, Smash! If all laws are arbitrary, my canary brain says that means all laws can be found to be the same by a false equivalency argument and discrimination against [Protected Class] is exactly the same as not letting child molesting heroin addicts work in your day care!"

This is the same person who once argued that universal health care would "discriminate" by only giving casts to people with broken bones so that's no different than discrimination against women in the workplace.

Or the ever famous "You can kill someone with a gun and you can kill someone with a crazy-straw, therefore crazy-straws are just as deadly as guns!"

I've no idea how people like that make it through the day without needing handlers. "I can eat cereal and I can eat dirt so dirt must be food just like cereal!"

Edited, Nov 8th 2013 7:57am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#86 Nov 08 2013 at 8:05 AM Rating: Excellent
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
I am the source of all law; it springs from my forehead like the Goddess Athena on a pogo stick, catches the fragile lives of men in its vice grip and squeezes until they turn into people like rdmcandie, gbaji... and you, you piece of ****. Fuck you, how dare you read my fucking post.

Fuck you.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#87 Nov 08 2013 at 8:06 AM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
That's a generic you, by the by.

Anyone who read that post, you got what you deserved.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#88 Nov 08 2013 at 8:11 AM Rating: Good
******
44,017 posts
I am the lawr.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#89 Nov 08 2013 at 8:46 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,078 posts
Kavekk wrote:


Anyone who read that post, you got what you deserved.
I've not got mine yet.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#90 Nov 08 2013 at 9:58 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
12,005 posts
Kavekk wrote:
I am the source of all law; it springs from my forehead like the Goddess Athena on a pogo stick, catches the fragile lives of men in its vice grip and squeezes until they turn into people like rdmcandie, gbaji... and you, you piece of sh*t. Fuck you, how dare you read my fucking post.

Fuck you.


Pensive, stop posting on Kavekk's acct. thx.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#91 Nov 08 2013 at 10:14 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,899 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:
Wait, you don't ACTUALLY think that argument makes some sort of negative case against equal protection, do you? No one could really be that deluded, could they?

"But, Gee Wilikers, Smash! If all laws are arbitrary, my canary brain says that means all laws can be found to be the same by a false equivalency argument and discrimination against [Protected Class] is exactly the same as not letting child molesting heroin addicts work in your day care!"

But they seemed so nice! Smiley: rolleyes

Meh, we're pack animals. Morality is nothing but that herd instinct manifesting itself. It's going to try and guilt you into doing what's best for the group, whatever you see your group as, and after things have been passed through the filter of your own perceptions. We wont let child molesting heroin addicts work in the daycare unless a whole lot of us view that as in the best interests of society.

Yay a safeguard. Smiley: yippee

Edited, Nov 8th 2013 8:15am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#92 Nov 08 2013 at 1:50 PM Rating: Excellent
******
21,717 posts
gbaji wrote:
I'm asking what criteria we use to decide what the law should say.


- Common decency.
- Protection of others from harm
- Workplace productivity

In that order.


I get that #1 is a bit of a problem for bigoted imbeciles like yourself. That's the great thing about having a population of ~300 million people. Eventually, over time, the bigots will be overruled by the more tolerant and decent members of society, which is exactly the process you're seeing now with equal protection for homosexuals, both in their personal and work lives.

Edited, Nov 8th 2013 1:52pm by BrownDuck
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#93 Nov 09 2013 at 8:52 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Hawaiians don't love liberty Smiley: frown

Quote:
Hawaii's state House, "turning back furious -- if futile -- pleas for delay, voted late Friday to grant marriage equality to *** and ******* couples," the Honolulu Star Advertiser reports.

"The 30-19 vote sends the bill to the state Senate, which is inclined to agree to the House version Tuesday and transmit the bill to Gov. Neil Abercrombie for his signature."

New York Times: "Hawaii is poised to be among 16 states to approve *** marriage, along with Illinois and shortly after Minnesota, New Jersey and Rhode Island. But the step in Hawaii has special resonance because the contemporary battle over same-*** marriage was born here two decades ago."


Edited, Nov 9th 2013 8:52am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#94 Nov 11 2013 at 8:11 AM Rating: Excellent
******
44,017 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
- Common decency.
[...]
I get that #1 is a bit of a problem for bigoted imbeciles like yourself.
Nice on paper, pretty useless in practice. Doing something solely because it's the nice thing to do and gives you a warm fuzzy isn't much reason to do, or not do, anything. I'm not killing people because it is the decent thing to do.

People are naturally ******
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#95 Nov 11 2013 at 7:44 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,767 posts
Belkira wrote:
I thought it had been explained a number of times that discrimination against felons, alcoholics, and drug addicts causes great risk to the financial viability of a company and are therefore considered justifiable discrimination, while discrimination against race, ***, creed, sexual orientation is not a risk towards the financial viability of a company and therefore is not justifiable discrimination.


And if those were the only ones I'd mentioned, you'd have a point. What about discrimination based on an applicants height, or hair color, or color of their shirt, or any of a number of factors which a potential employer might use to decide to hire person A instead of person B?

There's actually decent statistics showing that short people as a group suffer far more economic disadvantage relative to tall people than homosexuals compared to heterosexuals. So why not add height to the list of things we can't discriminate against when hiring? It's not just about whether hiring someone will hurt someone's business. The point is that we should allow the employer the freedom to spend his money (in the form of hiring people) in whatever way he wants and only place limits on what criteria he can use to make those choices to those which are absolutely necessary to prevent some gross harm to a whole group.


And there just isn't much evidence that homosexuals as a group are being harmed by the absence of special protections. Since this is the question at hand, that would seem to be relevant, right?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#96 Nov 11 2013 at 7:49 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,767 posts
Smasharoo wrote:

This is precisely the circular answer I said wasn't valid (but predicted that most people could not avoid, so thanks for being typical). You basically just said that the criteria for characteristics we protect from discrimination is whatever we've written into our laws to be protected from discrimination. Which is completely circular.


Yes, and arbitrary. All laws are arbitrary. All societies function based on a set of completely arbitrary rules.


I disagree. But it is a position commonly held by those who wish to make legal changes that can't be argued via any method other than the "since all laws are arbitrary why *not* pass this one" approach.

Quote:
Prohibition against murder? Arbitrary.


Wrong.

Quote:
There's no logical case for it that doesn't equally apply to equal protection for *** people.


The very phrase "equal protection for *** people" assumes that the speaker has no clue what "equal protection" actually means. Thanks for being consistent though!

Quote:
Wait, you don't ACTUALLY think that argument makes some sort of negative case against equal protection, do you? No one could really be that deluded, could they?


Equal protection? No. The thing you're claiming is "equal protection"? Absolutely. Do you need me to actually explain to you why?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#97 Nov 11 2013 at 8:30 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,706 posts
Quote:
What about discrimination based on an applicants height, or hair color, or color of their shirt, or any of a number of factors which a potential employer might use to decide to hire person A instead of person B?
All illegal in Canuckistan.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#98 Nov 11 2013 at 8:52 PM Rating: Excellent
Did Alma log into Gbaji's account?
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#99 Nov 11 2013 at 9:37 PM Rating: Good
******
44,017 posts
gbaji wrote:
What about discrimination based on an applicants height, or hair color, or color of their shirt, or any of a number of factors which a potential employer might use to decide to hire person A instead of person B?
So is your normal target audience in preschool? You keep trying to use the same faulty argument that doesn't make any real world sense. It's actually getting pretty sad, even by the lowered expectations everyone has for you. You're not even changing words like you normally do and pretending it's a completely new point.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#100 Nov 11 2013 at 9:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
There's actually decent statistics showing that short people as a group suffer far more economic disadvantage relative to tall people than homosexuals compared to heterosexuals. So why not add height to the list of things we can't discriminate against when hiring?

So get the ball rolling and start a petition to do this. Call your Congressman.

Unless you're just using the incredibly weak and lazy "Unless you're doing everything, you can't do this!" argument, I mean.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#101 Nov 11 2013 at 10:24 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,436 posts
There's actually decent statistics showing that short people as a group suffer far more economic disadvantage relative to tall people than homosexuals compared to heterosexuals.

Nope.


____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help