Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Landmark gay marriage trial starts today in California
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 211 of 759 (639801)
11-04-2011 1:14 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by Rrhain
11-04-2011 12:28 AM


General statements and stereotypes (rice division)
Taz writes:
I was attending a debate at a nearby university. The discussion was about general statements and stereotypes. At one point, a question was posed what would make a general statement ok to make. Someone said "asian people tend to eat rice".
Of course this got all the liberal commies all riled up. They called it racist and that you shouldn't make a statement like that.
My "bolding".
Rrhain writes:
And most likely, they're right. Why? Because nobody says something like, "Asian people tend to eat rice," in the context of nutritional anthropology.
Per nationmaster.com:
The top 9 rice consuming countries are Asian.
There is some per capita information and other discussion here.
There sure is a lot of rice eaten in Asian countries. "Asian people tend to eat rice", to me, qualifies as a good "general statements and stereotype". I have to side with Taz on this one.
Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Rrhain, posted 11-04-2011 12:28 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by Rrhain, posted 11-04-2011 1:45 AM Minnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 212 of 759 (639805)
11-04-2011 1:45 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by Minnemooseus
11-04-2011 1:14 AM


Minnemooseus responds to me:
quote:
The top 9 rice consuming countries are Asian.
That's not what "Asian people tend to eat rice" implies, though. Just because rice is most commonly consumed in Asia doesn't mean Asians tend to eat it.
Lutefisk is most commonly consumed by Americans (it's not that big of a thing in Scandanavia), but that doesn't mean Americans tend to eat lutefisk. Most lutefisk is eaten by Americans but most Americans have never even heard of it, let alone eaten it.
And again, rice is one of the most common foods of the human species. More than a fifth of all calories consumed by humans are from rice. Yeah, the biggest rice-eating countries may be Asian, but that hardly indicates that non-Asian countries are slackers when it comes to the white stuff.
quote:
"Asian people tend to eat rice", to me, qualifies as a good "general statements and stereotype". I have to side with Taz on this one.
And you'd be wrong. Again, you're completely ignoring context.
Let's assume that "Asians tend to eat rice" isn't a comment about Asians but rather a comment about rice. Such a statement might be understandable on an episode of Good Eats when Deb's on (she is, after all, a nutritional anthropologist), but you failed to respond to the underlying point:
When was the last time you had a discussion of nutritional anthropology? Do you really think it's likely that "Asian people tend to eat rice" is going to be uttered by someone discussing the history of grains in the human diet?
Or is it going to be some bigot making a point about how weird Asians are?
Context is key.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Minnemooseus, posted 11-04-2011 1:14 AM Minnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 213 of 759 (639806)
11-04-2011 2:00 AM
Reply to: Message 210 by Taz
11-04-2011 1:02 AM


Taz responds to me:
quote:
Are you really going to argue that everybody eats rice just as often as asian people?
I'm going to argue that you're playing dumb when I asked you very nicely not to.
quote:
Again, are you seriously going to argue that western people eat rice just as often as east asian people?
No, I'm going to argue that you're playing dumb when I asked you very nicely not to.
quote:
So... let me get this straight. Since the bigots hold the power, we should cave into their demand and recognize that there is something wrong with being gay?
Huh? Where did you get that?
You seem to have a binary method of attacking the premise that there's something wrong with being gay. I, however, am arguing that there are multiple ways around it.
Yeah, it'd be nice if we could get the powers that be to suddenly realize that being gay is of no concern and that if told that doing X would likely result in their kids being gay, they would shrug their shoulders. Where if asked what they thought if their kids were gay they'd respond, "If that's what makes them happy, then I'm happy."
That ain't gonna happen, not now, not for a long time if ever.
Therefore, what do we do here and now to help gay people? At the very least, what can we do to help us move along that road? Part of that process is showing that gay people don't have poor lives. That being around gay people doesn't cause problems. That accepting their existence and treating them the same as others doesn't cause anybody to do anything they don't want to do.
After all, to accept your premise that the question is nonsensical, we have to establish that being gay is normative.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Taz, posted 11-04-2011 1:02 AM Taz has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 214 of 759 (639819)
11-04-2011 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 210 by Taz
11-04-2011 1:02 AM


Are you really going to argue that everybody eats rice just as often as asian people?
Do you have any idea how often hispanic people eat rice? When I was a kid growing up we had it at least 5 days a week. I still eat rice 3-4 times a week. I am not asian.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Taz, posted 11-04-2011 1:02 AM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by bluescat48, posted 11-04-2011 8:42 PM Theodoric has not replied
 Message 243 by Taz, posted 02-13-2012 9:08 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4190 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 215 of 759 (639917)
11-04-2011 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by Theodoric
11-04-2011 9:12 AM


Heck! I'm neither Asian nor Hispanic and I have always eaten a lot of rice. If I have a choice between potatoes & rice, its rice every time.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by Theodoric, posted 11-04-2011 9:12 AM Theodoric has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 216 of 759 (651447)
02-07-2012 3:04 PM


Ninth Circuit affirms
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed the U.S. District Court ruling that Proposition 8 violates the Fourteenth Amendment.
Opinion here.
I haven't read the entire opinion yet, but it appears that the court drastically narrowed the issue. According to the opinion, California state law already and still allows homosexual couples to enjoy all the incidents of marriage. The only effect of Prop 8 was to deny them the official designation of "marriage" to their relationship. The court could find any "legitimate reason" for maintained the distinction in labels and so struck Prop 8.
The court apparently did not rule on the broader question of whether homosexual marriage is a protected right in and of itself.
Edited by subbie, : More info

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by Rahvin, posted 02-07-2012 3:17 PM subbie has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 217 of 759 (651450)
02-07-2012 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by subbie
02-07-2012 3:04 PM


Re: Ninth Circuit affirms
I just saw this as well, and it's great news. Do you know if the ruling takes effect immediately, allowing gay marriages in California again, or does it not take effect until the Supreme Court decides or declines to review the case?

The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.
- Francis Bacon
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by subbie, posted 02-07-2012 3:04 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by subbie, posted 02-07-2012 3:24 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 218 of 759 (651451)
02-07-2012 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by Rahvin
02-07-2012 3:17 PM


Re: Ninth Circuit affirms
According to generic forms appended to the end of the opinion, the Mandate will issue 7 days after the time has run to ask for a rehearing en banc, or 7 days after a denial on any motion for a rehearing, whichever come last. Or, the court has the discretion to stay the Mandate pending further proceedings if requested. The Mandate is the order to the state to comply with the judgment of the court, that is when it must allow gay marriages again, although I imagine there could be some slight period of delay to allow for administrative adjustments, if needed.
{AbE}
If the Supreme Court decides to hear the case, they can choose to stay the Court of Appeals opinion if they wish to.
Edited by subbie, : As noted

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Rahvin, posted 02-07-2012 3:17 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4229 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 219 of 759 (651562)
02-08-2012 10:31 AM


Oh Joy

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by crashfrog, posted 02-08-2012 10:49 AM Artemis Entreri has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 220 of 759 (651567)
02-08-2012 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 219 by Artemis Entreri
02-08-2012 10:31 AM


Yeah, I mean, how will your life in Virginia ever be the same if gay men and women in California can get married?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by Artemis Entreri, posted 02-08-2012 10:31 AM Artemis Entreri has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by subbie, posted 02-08-2012 11:09 AM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 222 by Artemis Entreri, posted 02-08-2012 11:32 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


(4)
Message 221 of 759 (651570)
02-08-2012 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 220 by crashfrog
02-08-2012 10:49 AM



Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by crashfrog, posted 02-08-2012 10:49 AM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by Artemis Entreri, posted 02-08-2012 11:33 AM subbie has seen this message but not replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4229 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 222 of 759 (651574)
02-08-2012 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 220 by crashfrog
02-08-2012 10:49 AM


LIBTARD RAGE!!!!!!!!
What the Fuck are you talking about.
I said joy, as in I am HAPPY FOR THEM
you want to talk about trolls, roflmfao. I say something positive and all you can see is red.
sometimes i think you are retarded.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by crashfrog, posted 02-08-2012 10:49 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4229 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 223 of 759 (651575)
02-08-2012 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 221 by subbie
02-08-2012 11:09 AM


Gollum is riverfolk, leave it to you to not even know what a troll looks like.
so ignorant

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by subbie, posted 02-08-2012 11:09 AM subbie has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 224 of 759 (651586)
02-08-2012 12:01 PM


The rationale of the decision is interesting. In essence, they point out that gay couples in a "civil union" or whatever it's called have exactly the same rights as a married couple. It doesn't matter in practical terms whether they are "married" or not.
And for that very reason, they say, it is evident that the only reason to deny them the word "marriage" is to discriminate against them. The state can have no legitimate reason for stopping them from getting married, because it allows them to do something which is the same in all its practical effects.

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by subbie, posted 02-08-2012 2:02 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 225 of 759 (651624)
02-08-2012 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by Dr Adequate
02-08-2012 12:01 PM


Yes, that is exactly right.
Because of that, I think it's less likely that the Supremes will hear the case. There's no doubt that there is a Constitutional issue. But, because of the unique circumstances of the case, I don't think the fact situation is paralleled anywhere else in the country. Although the opinion is technically binding anywhere in the Ninth Circuit, the practical effect is limited to California.
Another factor that I think makes it less likely that the Supremes will take it is that I believe it's the first federal appellate court decision on the question of gay marriage. One of the things that the Supremes look for in taking a case is whether the federal appellate courts are divided on an issue. Obviously, if this is the first one, there's no division.
We'll see.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-08-2012 12:01 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024