Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Mayor Pete Attacks Trump's Faith...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    I'm pretty sure my posts said "opt out." It was in reference to the entire school, not just a single class. I'm not sure I would be behind letting people "opt out" of a single class because of prejudicial and discriminatory views. Then we can have the white supremacist wanting to opt their child out of American history because of how it teaches the civil war, and the Klansman to opt out of world history because it teaches that the holocaust was real, and so forth. It's a formula for a mess. A school has a curriculum - some courses are mandatory - if you don't like it for prejudicial/discriminatory reasons - take your child elsewhere.
    There you go again, bringing supremacists into the discussion. And it is not a mess, nor has it been. Most states allow for opt out, and have for years, and it has not been a slippery slope. So it is just a canard on your part in view of forcing your relative opinion on others.

    https://family.findlaw.com/reproduct...n-schools.html


    To you, clearly. People with prejudices and discriminatory views seldom like to be called on them.
    Whom is forcing whom on this sex ed thing Carp?


    I'm not going to go round and round on this again. My preference tends to be to let the market speak, but the fact is there are still too many people like you for that to happen. The anti-LGBTQ person will still find plenty of advocates for their position. Hopefully, someday, there will be so many of us that anyone trying to pull this prejudicial/discriminatory crap will simply find themselves without customers and that will be that. Until then, as with the laws that made it illegal for the "white only" counters and bathrooms, we need those legal protections. Today, in most of the country, a "white only" bathroom would cause that business to fail almost immediately. That was not so when we were first beginning to make the change.
    There you go equating religious beliefs with racism. But again one side is doing the forcing here...


    Can't speak for the "leftists." I can speak for myself. The Constitution permits you to say what you think without the government taking action. So you can preach your anti-LGBTQ vitriol on the main street and not be arrested for it. It does not protect you from the rest of us saying, "we don't want to hear it." And it does not protect people who wish to treat other fellow citizens like trash, or restrict their access to the same rights and privileges the rest of us enjoy.
    But you don't have a right to my labor - we have a word for that. Again it is your side that is doing the forcing here - by law.


    I will always seek to marginalize those who speak to diminish others, Seer. I am not shy about it, and not embarrassed about it. Your complaints echo the complaints of every oppressor who has ever lived: "I have the right to be hateful to others if I so choose."

    You're right. You do. You just can't enshrine that hatefulness in law or public practice. Those of us who stand against such things will always speak out against it - even if you cry, scream, call us hypocrites, and make every other effort that oppressors have taken throughout history.

    Resisting oppression is not bigotry or prejudice. It is taking a stand for justice. If your god actually does exist, I suspect he/she/it would approve.
    Like I said you seek to marginalize groups and people your disagree with so your claim of being accepting or inclusive is just bull.
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

    Comment


    • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
      Yes - rights associated with the benefits of marriage, including medical and inheritance rights, etc. In some cases, rights to freely raise a family. In some cases, basic parental rights. The list goes on.
      To the best of my knowledge, and I admit to not reading everything that gets posted, no-one here has advocated denial of those rights to gays. What has been advocated, is that people be left free to decide to opt out of endorsing or taking part in gay life-styles.

      Of course. Apparently - they DID make an (indirect) comment: they said they would not include such couples in their magazine. I find that no different than saying "we will not have black couples in our magazine." They are free to do so - but I'm not going to buy and I'm going to get behind any initiative that pressures advertisers to go to more inclusive magazines.
      They got flooded with demands on their facebook page, to feature gay weddings, which they spent some time ignoring before they said finally said no. And if a magazine decides that it does not want to cater to particular demographics, I would say they have the right to make that decision without interference. Perhaps I would not consider buying such a magazine - but that is as far as I consider it reasonable to go unless the magazine in question starts making unfavourable comment about the groups in question. And I adopt that same attitude when I encounter even shops that refuse to serve foreigners (which includes me) when I am overseas. I'm willing to let people who neither actively promote violence against others nor subject others to gratuitous insult live in peace. If I don't - I give them good reason to get offended and act against me. That is something that witch hunters never understand, and witch hunters by their nature keep pushing ever increasing numbers of groups around until they offend enough people that a backlash follows. McCarthy did it last century, and there are a number of groups following the same pattern this century (to date.)

      The magazine was about weddings - not about heterosexuality or homosexuality. If someone starts a magazine called "Heterosexual Today," and focuses it on issues related to heterosexuality, I would find it odd for them to be asked to include homosexuality in their coverage.
      What someone calls his business or magazine is up to him. In any event, it would not have mattered what the name of the magazine was, their failure to endorse gay issues was enough to get them targetted.

      The magazine "Black Enterprise" does not usually contain articles about white businesses - it deals with the challenges of starting a business faces by black people, and champions the businesses that have been started. Personally, I don't like either and won't buy them, but I also won't pressure advertisers to avoid them. But a magazine that promotes weddings and then refuses to allow black people or gay people is explicitly practicing discrimination: I will not buy, and I will pressure advertisers to take their money elsewhere. The same would be true of a magazine promoting architecture who refuses to include the works of black people or gay people, and so forth.
      Yup - you're quite happy to pontificate about what kinds of discrimination are acceptable. So am I, come to that. There are certain people I don't want in my house, and certain people I choose not to deal with. Those decisions are based largely on whether they are willing to leave others in peace.
      1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
      .
      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
      Scripture before Tradition:
      but that won't prevent others from
      taking it upon themselves to deprive you
      of the right to call yourself Christian.

      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

      Comment


      • Originally posted by seer View Post
        There you go again, bringing supremacists into the discussion. And it is not a mess, nor has it been. Most states allow for opt out, and have for years, and it has not been a slippery slope. So it is just a canard on your part in view of forcing your relative opinion on others.

        https://family.findlaw.com/reproduct...n-schools.html
        Not a canard - my opinion, as an educator. You don't have to agree. I don't think people should be allowed to opt out from a required class for prejudicial/discriminatory reasons.

        Originally posted by seer View Post
        Whom is forcing whom on this sex ed thing Carp?
        Nobody is "forcing" anyone, AFAICT.

        Originally posted by seer View Post
        There you go equating religious beliefs with racism. But again one side is doing the forcing here...
        Religious beliefs are not equated with racism, Seer. Religious beliefs have been used by some to defend racism, and now (and for many centuries) are being used to defend discrimination against the LGBTQ community. Neither is acceptable.

        Originally posted by seer View Post
        But you don't have a right to my labor - we have a word for that. Again it is your side that is doing the forcing here - by law.
        No one is forcing anyone to any labor. What is being set are the bounds in which labor is conducted. This is a canard.

        Originally posted by seer View Post
        Like I said you seek to marginalize groups and people your disagree with so your claim of being accepting or inclusive is just bull.
        The oppressor is ever the "victim." Sorry, Seer - I have no sympathy for you or those who think like you with respect to this issue. Abandon discriminatory positions and you won't find a problem. Persist in them and expect to be called out for it.
        The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

        I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

        Comment


        • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
          I have no opinion because I seldom read Tass' posts, so I have no idea if he is actually "anti-Christian" or just expressing a non-christian viewpoint.

          I will say that I am not "anti-Christian" and have been accused of so being many, many times. So...
          What a weenie response.
          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
            To the best of my knowledge, and I admit to not reading everything that gets posted, no-one here has advocated denial of those rights to gays. What has been advocated, is that people be left free to decide to opt out of endorsing or taking part in gay life-styles.
            If anyone were ever "forced" to participate in a homosexual lifestyle, I would be right beside you defending your right not to. I would be doing the same thing if anyone were "forcing" you to participate in a black lifestyle, or female lifestyle, Muslim lifestyle, or any other lifestyle you don't want to make part of your own. The line gets drawn when this is turned into "I'm going to deny rights/services to others who practice that lifestyle."

            Originally posted by tabibito View Post
            They got flooded with demands on their facebook page, to feature gay weddings, which they spent some time ignoring before they said finally said no. And if a magazine decides that it does not want to cater to particular demographics, I would say they have the right to make that decision without interference. Perhaps I would not consider buying such a magazine - but that is as far as I consider it reasonable to go unless the magazine in question starts making unfavourable comment about the groups in question. And I adopt that same attitude when I encounter even shops that refuse to serve foreigners (which includes me) when I am overseas. I'm willing to let people who neither actively promote violence against others nor subject others to gratuitous insult live in peace. If I don't - I give them good reason to get offended and act against me. That is something that witch hunters never understand, and witch hunters by their nature keep pushing ever increasing numbers of groups around until they offend enough people that a backlash follows. McCarthy did it last century, and there are a number of groups following the same pattern this century (to date.)
            Then we disagree. If someone wants to promote a prejudicial/discriminatory position in public, they should expect a reaction from those of us who do not want that kind of thing in our public lives. As I said, if a wedding magazine decides not to include black couples and says so publicly, few of us would have a problem with calling them on their racism and even advocating for advertisers to go elsewhere. The situation is no different with the LGBTQ community.

            Originally posted by tabibito View Post
            What someone calls his business or magazine is up to him. In any event, it would not have mattered what the name of the magazine was, their failure to endorse gay issues was enough to get them targeted.
            Their refusal to include a segment of our population for prejudicial/discriminatory reasons is what got them targeted, and justifiably, IMO.

            Originally posted by tabibito View Post
            Yup - you're quite happy to pontificate about what kinds of discrimination are acceptable. So am I, come to that. There are certain people I don't want in my house, and certain people I choose not to deal with. Those decisions are based largely on whether they are willing to leave others in peace.
            We all have people we don't want to see around. The loud mouth. The glory hog. The chronic liar. Everyone has a right to choose who they want in their home. The leaders of this website have every right to determine who they do and do not want on their forum. Facebook has every right to set the bound on who can post on their servers. "It's a free country" does not mean anyone can do anything in anyone else's space. If you decide you do not want black people, gay people, or women to be in your home - that would be your right to do so.

            However, if someone goes beyond that to suggest that people have a right to bring these bigoted views and into the public sphere with impunity - on that we disagree. A black man should be able to get food from a business that serves food. A woman should be able to get employment from a business that hires people (assuming she can do the job and is the best qualified). A gay person should be able to buy a cake from a business that sells cakes. And those businesses that refuse to treat people without prejudice and discrimination are justifiably targeted by the market and (when possible) by our laws and civil practices.

            We're not going to agree on this Tab. I'm not expecting to. I realize the cards are stacked against me here, because it is the prevailing view here that people are justified in limiting the freedoms, rights, and experiences of the LGBTQ community in a way they would not do for black people, women, or Jews. I reject that justification. I always will. I will always speak against it.
            The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

            I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
              What a weenie response.
              Leave my weenie out of this!


              ETA: Seriously, I have mixed views on your observation. I certainly don't think that someone's religious beliefs should be the basis for treating them disrespectfully or harming them. But there is an increasingly widely held view that we have reached a point in human evolution that religions are doing more harm than good. Some would argue they always have. I don't hold that latter position, but I increasingly wonder about the former. At the end of the day, I believe most religions are grounded in a false perception of reality. I think they have served a vital purpose for a while, but I question if that purpose remains. Am I anti-Christian? In some way yes, in some ways no. I certainly believe the world would be better off if humanity let go of its various gods. I also believe that religion is dangerous in so far as anyone who believes "god says so" and believes this god actually exists is impervious to any argument. From that we get some good things: respect for family, charity, etc. From that we also get some pretty bad things: suicide bombers, anti-LGBTQ rhetoric/action, etc.

              Fundamentally - I think a belief system rooted in reality is best. Since I believe there is no god, I believe religions are fundamentally not rooted in reality - and eventually have to go.
              Last edited by carpedm9587; 05-13-2019, 04:11 PM.
              The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

              I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

              Comment


              • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                Leave my weenie out of this!
                You have done Tassman a great service. By commandeering the thread and filling it with bloviation, you have lessened the pressure on him to defend his steaming piles of horsie poo.

                I'm sure he's appreciative.
                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                  You have done Tassman a great service. By commandeering the thread and filling it with bloviation, you have lessened the pressure on him to defend his steaming piles of horsie poo.

                  I'm sure he's appreciative.


                  Now THAT is funny.



                  Tass - I expect my payment by certified check....


                  BTW - I added a bloviation to that last post...
                  The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                  I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post


                    Now THAT is funny.



                    Tass - I expect my payment by certified check....
                    You're a wise man! His credibility is... um.... he tends to 'write checks' with no facts in the bank.
                    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                      BTW - I added a bloviation to that last post...
                      I wasn't aware of this little factoid on bloviation....

                      Bloviation is a style of empty, pompous political speech popularized by United States President Warren G. Harding, who, himself a master of the technique, described it as "the art of speaking for as long as the occasion warrants, and saying nothing".
                      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by guacamole View Post
                        If anyone wants me to help them get the Donald J. Trump sized beam out of their eyes, then I'll go grab my vice grip right quick.
                        I'm guessing you've never actually used vice grips. That wouldn't be the tool of choice for handling beams.
                        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                          I wasn't aware of this little factoid on bloviation....

                          Bloviation is a style of empty, pompous political speech popularized by United States President Warren G. Harding, who, himself a master of the technique, described it as "the art of speaking for as long as the occasion warrants, and saying nothing".
                          I'm honored to be in such company...
                          The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                          I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                            I'm guessing you've never actually used vice grips. That wouldn't be the tool of choice for handling beams.
                            Well now - that depends entirely on what you're doing. I actually store my vice grips on a beam in my garage. I always know where to find them, and they never disappear!
                            The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                            I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                              Well now - that depends entirely on what you're doing. I actually store my vice grips on a beam in my garage. I always know where to find them, and they never disappear!
                              That's hardly the beam that is indicated - the "Donald J. Trump sized beam".
                              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                                That's hardly the beam that is indicated - the "Donald J. Trump sized beam".
                                Right... I knew that.

                                For Mr. Trump, we'd need something more like this...

                                Clippy.PNG.jpg
                                The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                                I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                162 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                400 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                114 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                198 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                379 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X